OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-stc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: QR review

StC (and Exec in particular),

I hate to nag and ask for this again.  However, I'm disappointed that I do have
to ask for it a second time.  After about a week no one on the Exec has
responded to my first request.  Please clarify the roles of QRT and the Exec in
regard to review of a specification prior to submission to the full Work
Group.   Anders and his team need an answer on what to do next.

Again, my opinion FWIW from a strictly procedural perspective is that since
nothing *explicitly* changed when the QR function and team changed, it still
falls to the submitting team to decide whether or not to submit something to the
full Work Group.  If that is the case, TA can choose to disregard the
recommendations and submit now if they choose.  Or, they can make what they
consider a reasonable effort to work with QRT and resolve the comments, then
submit it when think the spec is ready.  In either case, it is up to TA to
decide what to do.

>From a practical (as opposed to procedural) perspective, I suggest the second



"agrangard@nycall.com" wrote:

> We today received the comments behind the QR recommendation not to circulate
> the Technical Architecture specification to the full ebXML community. It
> contains many good and valid points and we are, wherever possible,
> addressing these points. Some questions, though;
> What is the role of the QR team? My recollection of the Technical
> Coordination was that it should review the quality of the specifications
> and, more importantly, ensure that the specifications are aligned with each
> other. Maybe this changed with the PT name change since the majority of
> comments now address contents and hardly any alignment checking (at least
> not explicitly).
> I sincerely hope the all the " I mean, I think, IMHO, etc" is a case of
> uncareful typing. If these indeed are individual comments rather than a QR
> team effort, they should be treated as such.
> What is required from our team to get this specification to the next step?
> If the answer would be that all comments have to be resolved, I do not see
> this happening any time soon as there are  bound to be differences in
> opinion on many of them. To resolve this quickly I would suggest that one or
> two persons from the QR team would join us in the TechArch conference call
> the 5th October. Secondly if each PT lead would give us an indication on how
> well/poorly the TechArch specification aligns with their specifications, I
> think we can regain some lost time.
> Kind regards
> Anders Grangard
> Anders Grangard
> Edifrance
> Ingénieur - Consultant en Commerce électronique
> Tel: +33 (0)1 42 91 62 24
> http://www.edifrance.org

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC