Re: TA spec 1.0.1

[Klaus-Dieter Naujok <knaujok@home.com>]

Tim,

Thanks for the feedback. My first reaction is if it were true that they are following a much earlier time table they would be 2 weeks behind instead of 1 :-)

It seems that due to TA not having been on all our StC calls they missed the modification to the process. I did send out a updated time table with the new review cycle on the 18th January.

Regards,

Klaus

--Original Message Text---
From: Tim McGrath
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:33:53 +0800

klaus,

thanks for clarifying that there will be no further QR of this document..

i think the TA team (and the QR team) were planning to follow the process as published in the document "ebXML Specification Approval Process" of Sep 20, 2000.

week minus three shows a QR reveiw of the second round comments. ebXML Specification Approval Process
Sep 20, 2000

Time Line
The approval vote is taken during an ebXML plenary. Milestone dates for the events necessary to submit a specification for vote are given below in weeks prior to the plenary. Relevant details for major events are listed below.

-16 Team submits team-approved specification to Quality Review Team
-15 Quality Review Team returns review comments. Team processes comments submitted by Quality Review Team
-14 Team submits team-approved specification, addressing QRT comments, to the full ebXML Work Group for first comment period
-12 Close of first comment period. Project team reviews and responds to comments, and prepares next revision of specification.
-10 Team submits team-approved revision of specification, addressing comments from first review period and accompanied by log with disposition of comments, to Quality Review Team
-9 Quality Review Team returns review comments on revision after first comment period. Team processes comments submitted by Quality Review Team
-8 Team submits team-approved revision of specification, revised from first comment period, plus log with disposition of comments, for second comment period to full ebXML Work Group
-6 Close of second comment period. Project team reviews and responds to comments, and prepares final revision of specification.
-4 Team submits team-approved final revision of specification, addressing comments from second period and accompanied by log with disposition of comments, to Quality Review Team for review
-3 Quality Review Team returns review comments on revision after second comment period. Team processes comments submitted by Quality Review Team
-2 Team submits team-approved final revision of specification, addressing comments from second comment period and accompanied by log with disposition of comments, for review prior to plenary vote
0 Week of plenary


the confusion probably lies in the TA spec not following the original schedule and i think we were planning on playing it safe with the request for QR.


Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:23:37 +0100, agrangard@nycall.com wrote:

>After reviewing the disposition document of the TA spec 1.0.1, I recommend
>that the specification and the disposition of the comments from the second
>review period are made available to the ebXML community. I am aware of that
>we today received some comments on the disposition document, but if we want
>to allow the ebXML members reasonable time to review what they are going to
>vote on next week, these should be dealt with in parallel. Any unresolved
>issue that remains after this week should be addressed at the steering
>committee meeting the 11 Feb.

Anders,

I just spoke to Bob S. in order to find out if it was me having
trouble to understand what you are suggesting. It seems I am not
alone. So let me try to outline our concern.

We have a very simple process that outlines what is required to
approve a document at the plenary. To restate:

Final version of the document made available to the ebXML members
2 weeks before the start of the ebXML F2F.

Before a document can be called final, it must have undergone 2
previous public reviews that included two QRT reviews with the
recommendation to go out for review. In addition it requires that
the comments from the last review have been addressed (and
documented of their disposition). To ensure that the project team
members are supportive of the specification ready for approval
(and previous reviews) a internal vote needs to have been taken
that has at least 67% of the PT members support the action.

The final approval of the specification will be at our F2F. During
the Monday opening plenary the document will be introduced. This
will allow any member who feels that their comments where not
disposed of appropriately to speak up. Should such a situation
arise the parties are asked to get together during the meeting in
order to resolve the topic. If the project team feels that it can
not resolve last minute issues it can asked the StC for advice.

Should changes result to the document during the week in response
to an issue raised during the opening plenary, than the revised
specification must be made available by Thursday night (including
a change log) to all ebXML members. The vote will be conducted
during the Friday closing plenary.

Now to the TA specification at hand, and the problems I see with
the message above.

1) The deadline for the dissemination of the final version has
expired last week (Monday).

2) Judging by the comments from Anders it seems that the current
version may not be final.

3) Judging by the fact that the group is still not in agreement
with the disposition document, the PT seems not to have taken its
final vote.

Anders, I can not see how we are going to vote on the TA document
during Vancouver. As I said at the start, we have a simple process
and an agreed time table. I have bend backwards to modify the time
table over and over for not only the TA team but other project
teams. The one requirement we can not change is the fact that we
must have a truly final document (and disposition log) as approved
by the project team 2 weeks before our meeting. I don't like it
myself that we will not be able to approve it, but we must allow
due process.

One other comment to a note I have seen on the TA list in regard
of sending the document to QRT. That is NOT a requirement during
the final phase. All QRT comments should have been addressed
during the first two cycles.

Regards,

Klaus

--
Klaus-Dieter Naujok ebXML & TMWG Chair
Netfish Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Technology Officer
--
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142


--
Klaus-Dieter Naujok                          ebXML & TMWG Chair
Netfish Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Technology Officer