Re: [ebxml-bp] [TMG Vote] ebXML BPSS V1.1 TS Submission to TC154

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Everyone,
It may be premature given the current state of this discussion and any 
assumed ISO action to address this issue.  It has not yet been 
considered in the CEFACT plenary and through the appropriate CEFACT 
processes.

I suggest we defer our conversation and concentrate on our main focus, 
advancement of ebBP in ebXML BPSS v2.0.

Thanks.

> Sachs: 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.
>
>> Nickull: How do members of this list feel about this?
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [TMG Vote] ebXML BPSS V1.1 TS Submission to TC154
>> 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
>>
>> Tell: 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.
>>
>>> Naujok: 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. 
>>