Re: URGENT: Vote on TA spec 1.0.2

[Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>]

I think we need to consider making an exception or changing the rules to
allow the TA spec to be approved next week.  If the procedures were set in
stone and had been voted on by the full membership, I would object, but that
is not the case.  There will be PR problems in not approving the TA spec in
Vancouver.

However, if we can not agree to allow approval, I urge that we at least
submit the spec for an approval in principle so that we can have some degree
of completion.

Mike

Duane Nickull wrote:

> Klaus/Steering Committee and Executive Committee:
>
> You are correct as to the procedure.
>
> We (ebXML) need to get this TA specification approved.  I think it is
> important, not only for the image of ebXML, but to aide with future
> ebXML deliverables.  Therefore, we have to look at the possibilities for
> approval:
>
> 1.  Wait until the next meeting after Vancouver
>
> 2.  Modify the procedure or make an exception in order to facilitate
> this spec being voted on in Vancouver.
>
> 3.  Modify the procedure so the spec can be voted on after the Vancouver
> meeting but before the next meeting.
>
> Option #1 follows procedures however, it doesn't help advance the causes
> of ebXML.  I think most are in agreement that we need to deliver
> something.
>
> Option #2 does not follow the rules but I personally favour it.  The
> entire ebXML plenary has had a recent two week period which they all had
> full access to the spec.  Many either never read it or decided that it
> was fine the way it was.  The comments submitted by most active
> participants were realtively minor and did not result in any major re
> writing. ALL have been addressed and documented.
>
> In light of the small changes, and the full access plenary members have
> to the document now, I think it would not be unreasonable to recognize
> the importance of this specification to the overall well being of ebXML
> and make a provisional change to the process.  The document, and ALL
> change logs, can go out tomorrow for full review by the plenary for
> voting on in Vancouver.
>
> The change logs themselves should be sufficient to review before making
> a decision.
>
> If the spec goes out tomorrow, people have 6 days to review it before
> the opening plenary in Vancouver, then another 4 days before the
> Thursday night review and then a final vote on Friday.
>
> *Please*, let's consider this as an option and, if we decide to proceed,
> have an executive committee vote on this tomorrow (barring any oposition
> from the Steering Committee).  If no one objects,  there should be no
> problem due to the public stature in which this document currently
> resides.
>
> Option #3 is not favourable to me.
>
> A number of people have worked almost full time on this specification to
> get it ready for the vote. It would really be a shame for us to miss the
> Vancouver opportunity by one week and have to wait until the next
> meeting.
>
> Duane Nickull

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