RE: ebXML Requirements Specifications Press Release

["Rik Drummond" <drummond@onramp.net>]

thank you klaus.. we have the same understanding... i will be out of contact
for a week going to japan tomorrow..... see ya in a week... rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok [mailto:klaus@templar.net]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 10:24 AM
To: Klaus; Rik Drummond; Sutor
Cc: ebXML Listserv (E-mail)
Subject: RE: ebXML Requirements Specifications Press Release


On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:30:30 -0600, Rik Drummond wrote:

>may be i have a procedural misunderstanding. Now i know that everything we
>do is viewable by the public... but i thought we did work in the committee,
>then voted on release to the wider ebxml audience for review and after they
>reviewed it then we released it to the public... what i get from the
>discussion is that voting to pass it on to the wider ebxml community is the
>same as going to the wider audience "officially"... is this true?  if so i
>would like to discuss it, because it think that will get us in trouble....

Rik,

>From my point of view you DO NOT have a procedural
misunderstanding.  Attached is the diagram I made available in
regard to our process. It clearly identifies that the review is
by "all" ebXML participants (those that have registered and are
part of the ebXML list.  The public is welcome to join by
registering, but there was no intend to pass it outside ebXML
for comments.  After the two internal reviews cycles and the
final approval via the "plenary", will we pass to the public our
specification.

As to the press release, the wording seems to indicate that we
made it available for public review, which was not our
intention.  I guess we learn from our mistakes.  What should
have been said was that is is now out for review to the ebXML
community and that anyone wishes to participate is welcome by
joining the ebXML initiative.  However, it does correctly
outline the process by stating that a second review cycle is
scheduled before the Brussels meeting in order to seek approval
by the plenary.

Rik, thanks for pointing out our slip, and I take some
responsibility by not reading the press release more carefully.
One way to fix this is to adjust on our web site the text under
the "Draft for comment" section by not asking comments to be
send to the project team leader and editor but to a ebXML list.
We could create a special list that includes all ebXML
participants as members that can send to the list, but the
messages are only send to the StC members which includes the
chair of the respective project team leader.  This way we
"force" those who want to comment but are not ebXML members at
least to register in order for us to get some idea about who
they are.  Feel free to think about this, and remember, in
reality we are a wide open group and because of it it will be
hard to limited the audience who wishes to comment on our work.
Let's try to be positive in that any comment may help us in
creating the best technical specification that we can.

Regards,

Klaus

BTW, I did not copy all the project team lists on this reply
because it is my understanding that the ebXML list includes
every ebXML participant, in other words the all ebXML project
team members are part of this general list.