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: TA spec 1.0.1


  Comments inline:

"agrangard@nycall.com" wrote:
> 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.
As Klaus clearly stated, we would have to have circulated the TA spec
two weeks before the Vancouver opening Plenary.  That makes the date for
submission to the plenary January 29,2001.  We clearly were not close to
that date.

I have asked the Steering committe for special treatment with the TA
Spec.  That thread is circulating now.  
> 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.

This was addressed in the last spec TA 1.0.2.    The comment is not as
you state it.  It was using Open EDI as a Reference model to Base ebXML
on.  We changed the wording accordingly and all voices are now happy
with this.  The person even emailed in a "Yes" vote.

At this time,  the TA spec has receieved ALL yes votes from the TA team
with one exception who gave us a provisional "yes".  The issues he
stated were to be discussed only in Vancouver and he was clear that he
realized they hmay not be adopted.   Still,  we have a responsibility to
discuss them.  I personally do not see any big show stoppers here.

> 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.

This will only happen if the Steering Committee sends the document to
the plenary today, then during the opening Plenary, there is a clear
consensus to remove the 14 day clause.  The document can then be worked
on up until Thursday night, at which time it is to be re submitted to
the plenary with a detailed change log.  That means we can vote on the
document Friday during the plenary.

I will re apply to the steering committee to send it out today to the
plenary for final read before voting.  If we don;t elect to waive the 14
day period during the opening plenary, we are still no worse off than we
are now.

As per your comments about delay in approval,  if we are not approved
via a vote in Vancouver, we have to wait until the next meeting. 
Specifications can only be approved during F2F meetings.  This is not a
conditional that I would recommend waiving as it cannot be assured that
everyone even was aware of the issue.

Duane Nickull
Co-Lead Technical Architecture

[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