[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] [TMG Vote] ebXML BPSS V1.1 TS Submission to TC154
The business of counting non-votes as "yes" seems a bit odd but one would have to check the UN/CEFACT charter to see if that procedure is allowed. Bear in mind that in the US corporate annual-meeting world, counting non-votes (that is, not returning the proxy ballot) as agreement with management's position is standard practice. Regards, Marty At 12:47 PM 3/24/2004, Duane Nickull wrote: > How do members of this list feel about this? > >Duane > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [TMG Vote] ebXML BPSS V1.1 TS Submission to TC154 >Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:17:48 +0100 >From: "Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se> >Reply-To: UN/CEFACT Core Component WG <uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org> >Organization: Financial Toolsmiths AB >To: UN/CEFACT Core Component WG <uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org> >CC: UN/CEFACT TMG Business Processes WG ><uncefact-tmg-bpwg@listman.disa.org>, UN/CEFACT TMG BPSS Editing Team ><uncefact-tmg-bpss@listman.disa.org>, UN/CEFACT TMG UBAC Project Team ><uncefact-tmg-ubac@listman.disa.org>, uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org >References: <F2B40416-7D24-11D8-AF3A-000A958E399E@attglobal.net> > > > >The unexpected creation of this voting list and once again a rush decision >raise several questions about >transparency and procedure. I have no time to delibrate on these issues >right now so Ill get back later on. > >One part of the proposed voting procedure that must change is: >"No response from any voting members will be interpreted as a "yes" vote. " > >No responce from a "not present members" must be counted as "not adding to >the quorum" and not as Yes! > >There are serious issues regarding the BPSS that must be addressed re. the >Secretariats view regarding ebXML. >See >thanks >/anders > >Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote: > >>All, >> >>I am not sure were to start, so let me do so by stating that I had >>planned to follow up with this item right after my return home from Bonn, >>unfortunately I went off-line last week due to a death in the family and >>just now am getting back to work. >> >>In Bonn, the CCWG put before the TMG plenary the following resolution: >> >>"In order to have all specifications within the ebXML framework within >>ISO, We resolve to submit the Core Components Technical Specification >>Version 2.01 to ISO TC 154 for fast-tracking as a Draft Technical >>Specification." >> >>This was approved by TMG and the request was passed on to the CSG and >>UNECE secretariat to add it to the upcoming CEFACT plenary agenda so that >>it can get final approval. >> >>In Bonn, the suggestion was made to also approve the ebXML BPSS V1.1 TS >>for fast-tracking to TC154. Since the BPWG did not meet nor had a quorum, >>I was asked to pose the question to the voting members electronically, >>which I am doing now. >> >>In addition to TMG members raising the request, a number of CSG members, >>as well as the UNECE secretariat asked the same question, should we not >>submit our other ebXML TS to TC154? Argument being "that such action >>clearly demonstrates that UN/CEFACT still supports ebXML, contrary to the >>perceptions frequently spread by various parties and organizations". >> >>Normally, the process would be for the BPWG to agree to the resolution >>first, and ones approved, the TMG voting members would be asked to >>support this. HOWEVER, there is little time, the deadline for submitting >>documents for "plenary approval" has long passed (before the Bonn >>meeting), BUT because of the importance the CSG asked the secretariat to >>make an exception to allow not only the CCTS to be added but also the >>BPSS TS. The UNECE secretariat has agreed to the request - however we >>must come to an agreement by this Friday to pass on to the secretariat >>our approved request and the supporting document (BPSS V1.1). Since all >>BPWG voting members are a subset of the TMG voting members, there should >>not be problem doing this as a "single" vote. >> >>Therefore, using the text from the CCTS and modifying it for the BPSS, I >>pose the request that the TMG approve the following resolution: >> >>"In order to have all specifications within the ebXML framework within >>ISO, We resolve to submit the ebXML Business Process Schema Specification >>Version 1.1 to ISO TC 154 for fast-tracking as a Draft Technical >>Specification." >> >>The vote will close on Friday 26 March 2004 at 23:59 (any time zone). No >>response from any voting members will be interpreted as a "yes" vote. >> >>The list is now open for any discussion on this item. >> >>Regards, >> >>Klaus >> >>-- >>Klaus-Dieter Naujok UN/CEFACT/TMG Chair >>Global e-Business Advisory Council Principal Advisor >>Business: www.ge-bac.com Personal: www.klaus.naujok.name >>TMG: www.untmg.org BCF: www.unbcf.org >>Fingerprint: 78D6 FFD4 0A9B B7DE C738 6F04 3FA1 B366 F4B8 5064 >> > > >-- >///////////////////////////////////// >/ Business Collaboration Toolsmiths / >/ website: / >/ email: / >/ phone: +46 8 562 262 30 / >/ mobile: +46 70 546 66 03 / >///////////////////////////////////// > > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to the uncefact-tmg-ccwg listserve. >To unsubscribe send an email to lyris@listman.disa.org with the >following subject: Unsubscribe uncefact-tmg-ccwg If you do not receive >confirmation of your unsubscribe request please notify postmaster@disa.org >to report the problem. > > >-- >Senior Standards Strategist >Adobe Systems, Inc. >http://www.adobe.com > ************************************* Martin Sachs standards architect Cyclone Commerce msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]