Re: [business-transaction] Issue 89

[Mark Little <mark_little@hp.com>]

> I'm getting distant from the details of this one, but my view on
> procedure, with the necessary declaration of my bias, is
>
> a) delay of the spec for this item would not be justified
>
> b) that the proposed insertion, which Bill Pope summarized well a couple
> of days ago, does not undermine or alter the central thrust or details
> of any other part of the specification, and continues in my view to be a
> useful placeholder, optional and at worst harmless (and at best very
> useful).
>
> c) that the proposed insertion is not inherently complex or novel in
> content
>
> d) that votes exist to decide differences, and that a split vote on this
> issue is not going to create civil war, nor I assume, lead anyone to
> vote against the whole spec (whether the insertion is in or out).
>
> ... so, why don't we vote on counterposed (mutually exclusive)
> proposals, one of which is defer to the future, as we have done with
> other issues, and the other is to adopt whatever the latest text is that
> the pro's are in favour of -- and be done with it?

If we vote to not defer does that automatically mean we agree with the
insertion of the text? I hope not. We don't have a problem with voting on
whether we should defer to future *and* then (if necessary) vote on whether
to accept/reject the proposed solution to 89. But these are not mutually
exclusive votes.


>
> I would have thought that this could either be done via telecon +
> e-mail, or at the F2F, and then we can all move on to making BTP known
> and, I hope, widely adopted in the industry.
>
> If we finalized this issue at the F2F then we do have more time to
> discuss it -- I presume that the next three weeks allows quite a lot of
> further discussion, does it not?
>
> Yours,
>
> Alastair
>
> William Z Pope wrote:
>
> > Apologies to the participants but it is worth making visible to
> > a wider audience this point from email on the bt-spec list.
> > Paraphrasing from the ongoing conversation on Issue 89 ...
> >
> >     We (the TC) need to spend more time discussing this before
> >     voting on it.
> >
> >     Which re-raises the issue that there is no guarantee we will
> >     have made enough progress on this before the (self-imposed)
> >     1.0 deadline.  In that case how do we proceed?  Vote on what
> >     may be insufficient knowledge, delay the spec, or postpone
> >     the vote?
> >
> > I'm posing the question at this point so people can think about
> > it.  We are not, quite, at the point where that decision must
> > be made but it's coming soon.
> >
> > William Z Pope
> > zpope@pobox.com
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>