[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] No more Committee Specifications?
Karl, Ok - that clarifies the document stuff - but maybe we should have an alternate name for those who are intending to move theirs forward, afterall - I suspect this is the majority. I see how Committee Draft works as the staging point. Then maybe after the 30 days review and update - this should be a Committee Reviewed Draft? Some fine tuning would help. On the voting front - having the ability to vote either to approve the specification, or to approve it and submit to OASIS membership - as single steps - pick the one you want to do - would certainly help with vote logistics. On the verification statements - a suggestion would be - 3 member companies / and / or - open source implementation with certification from a fielded project and results. With the later - some discretion I think should apply, so OASIS could ask for additional validations / or details (white papers are good) and delay the process accordingly - if it felt there was not ample enough on the first pass to provide an equivalent level of adoption. I feel this needs to have the right balance - so that abuse can be prevented - while not stifling emerging technology and making it still-born. I definately appreciate your endeavours to improve this all for us. Thanks, DW.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]