Re: Fwd: ebXML Specification Time Line Revisited

[Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>]

I think it very important to stick to the process that we have agreed to, and around which expectations have
been set.  I have reservations about, in effect, potentially re-opening the comment periods on the R&R,
Core, and Architecture specs.  The BP meta-model in second revision (and any others that are ready by
Friday), will have a third cycle.   However, if we feel that there is a good chance that people were not
notified and if we feel confident that we can notify them better now, then this approach is probably
justified.   I have a few reservations about collapsing the time line, but since the time line was not
distributed widely outside of the Steering Committee it may not be much of a problem.

My only other concern is that this is a very aggressive schedule.  The team leaders need to decide if they
want to try for it, or wait until the next cycle.  If you want to go for it, you have my support. (Easy for
me to say, I don't have anything specs in progress!)

Mike

Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote:

> Mike:  Thanks for your quick turn around from this mornings meeting.  As mention to you I am forwarding
> to the full StC since you are making a some good comments which we need to address.
>
> Here is my view after reading your message that I like to put in front of the group.
>
> Knowing that there has been a notice by me to the general list that there were specifications for
> review, but also knowing that many participants had problem in getting the documents for various
> reasons, busy server, corrupt file, etc., not to mention that there were many errors messages due to bad
> addresses, I like to use your modified schedule to allow a complete review cycle of all documents.  Yes,
> it means that 4 teams will have 3 public review cycles instead of 2 (plus plenary).  However, the last
> thing we need in San Jose is for some one to stand up and q1uestion our process by stating that he/she
> have only had 1 chance to review a particular document. We had enough bad light on our process during
> the last meeting, let us eliminate any problems we know may come up as an issue. As Mike said, the last
> thing we need is to be accused of short circuiting the process (even if it was not intentionally).
>
> In summary, the cycle would be:
>
> 7/07 - Submit specification for first comment period.
> 7/17 - Close of first comment period.
> 7/24 - Submit revision of specification for second comment period.
> 7/31 - Close of second comment period.
> 8/03 - Submit final revision of specification for review prior to plenary vote.
> 8/07 - Week of plenary.
>
> Awaiting your comments.  Need to come to an agreement not later than tomorrow in order to put on the web
> the agreed process cycle times.
>
> Regards,
>
> Klaus
>
> ==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE==================
> >Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:15:29 -0500
> >From: Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>
> >Subject: ebXML Specification Time Line Revisited
> >To: "Naujok, Klaus-Dieter" <knaujok@pacbell.net>
>
> Klaus,
>
> Here's the zipped version of the approval process as of 5/30.
>
> The *ideal* time line for the August meeting, based on this document,
> would be:
>
> 5/29 -  Submit team approved specification to the full ebXML Work Group
> for first comment period.
> 6/12 - Close of first comment period.  Project team reviews and responds
> to comments, and prepares next revision of specification.
> 6/26 - Submit team approved revision of specification, plus log with
> disposition of comments, for second comment period to full ebXML Work
> Group
> 7/10 - Close of second comment period. Project team reviews and responds
> to comments, and prepares final revision of specification.
> 7/24 - Submit team approved final revision of specification, plus log
> with disposition of comments, for review prior to plenary vote
> 8/7 - Week of plenary
>
> Here's my shot at the most expedited time line we could try for if a
> specification is just starting first review now:
>
> 7/7 -  Submit team approved specification to the full ebXML Work Group
> for first comment period.
> 7/17 - Close of first comment period.  Project team reviews and responds
> to comments, and prepares next revision of specification. (comment
> period of 10 days vs. 14)
> 7/24 - Submit team approved revision of specification, plus log with
> disposition of comments, for second comment period to full ebXML Work
> Group.  (process comments in 7 days vs. 14)
> 7/31 - Close of second comment period. Project team reviews and responds
> to comments, and prepares final revision of specification.  (comment
> period of 7 days vs. 14)
> 8/3 - Submit team approved final revision of specification, plus log
> with disposition of comments, for review prior to plenary vote (process
> comments in 3 days vs. 14; specification available 4 days before meeting
> instead of 14)
> 8/7 - Week of plenary
>
> My personal feelings are that we should not try to short circuit this
> process.  The cost of not having specifications approved is going to be
> high.  However, to me it is outweighed by the risk of furthering
> perceptions of process deficiencies,  ram-rodding specifications
> through, and being a contentious and dysfunctional organization.
>
> Status:
>
> There are a few specifications that are already somewhere in the
> process.   Based on your memo of June 8 (and previous notices), the
> following have concluded at least their first comment period:
>
>    * Registry & Repository - Part 1 Business Domain
>    * Technical Architecture Specification Draft (version 0.6)
>    * Business Process - Metamodel Technical Specification Draft - (In
>      second comment period as of 6/28)
>    * Core Component Methodology Technical Specification Draft
>
> TRP has had a requirements and definitions draft on the web since before
> Brussels, but I've not seen anything else from them since then on the
> general listserv.
>
> I have seen no notices on the general listserv about any other
> specifications, including a second revision of Architecture or any other
> specifications from BP, Core Components, or R&R.  It certainly is a
> possibility that I've dropped a few bits, but I think it more likely
> they didn't hit my inbox.  If an StC member hasn't even seen notice of
> something yet, then I hardly think we can call it out for comment.
>
> I know that you'll have specification status as an agenda item on the
> next StC call.  We have only two options now:  short circuiting the
> process or owning up to missing the August approval for several
> specifications.  Given that both of these are undesirable, perhaps we
> might want to have listserv discussion or another call *next week*
> instead of waiting two weeks?
>
> Mike
>
> --
> Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EDI Consulting
> http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
>
> ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                           Name: ApprovalProcess.zip
>    ApprovalProcess.zip    Type: Zip Compressed Data (application/x-zip-compressed)
>                       Encoding: base64

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EDI Consulting
http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/



=======================================================================
= This is ebxml-stc, the general mailing list for the ebXML           =
= Steering Committee. The owner of this list is                       =
= owner-ebxml-stc@oasis-open.org                                      =
=                                                                     =
= To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.oasis-open.org with    =
= the following in the body of the message:                           =
=      unsubscribe ebxml-stc                                          =
= If you are subscribed using a different email address, put the      =
= address you subscribed with at the end of the line; e.g.            =
=      unsubscribe ebxml-stc myname@company.com                       =
=======================================================================