Re: TA spec 1.0.1

["agrangard@nycall.com" <anders.grangard@edifrance.org>]

Klaus,

My response to your three concerns below:

1) I am trying to follow the time plan we agreed in the steering committee,
which states that the specification and disposition of comments should be
circulated the 2 February. This made my proposal one working day late and if
this is reasonable cause to stop the process, so be it.

2) It is likely that we will have issues to resolve coming into the
Vancouver meeting. Example: one member states that he will vote no if the
reference to open-edi is not removed, another says he will vote no if it is
not kept in. These should be addressed as you describe below.

3) The agreed deadline for the TA team to vote on the disposition was
yesterday - Monday. Of the emails I have seen we sure have a qualified
majority.

So, my proposal is still to circulate the documents. We have lost another
working day but if we send it out today at least we stand a chance of having
it voted in Vancouver.

Anders

----- Original Message -----
From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok <knaujok@home.com>
To: ebXML SC, List server <ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: TA spec 1.0.1


> 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
>
>