Re: ebXML Requirements Specifications Press Release

[Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>]

It was definitely the Requirements team's intention that the press release
should be focused to announce our progress to the world, and invite all who are
interested to participate in ebXML and comment on the draft.  We did not intend
this to be a call for comment by the general public, and I also apologize for
not proofing the press release closer.   I think we need some standard
boilerplate along the lines Klaus suggested to include in future press releases.

Regarding comment solicitation, I suggest we put this topic on the agenda for
the next steering committee conference call.  There are several options we
should discuss, then have the team leaders present the options to their teams.
I don't think the whole listserv is going to be interested in the details of the
discussion.

Mike

Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote:

> 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.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

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