Re: FW: OASIS schedule update

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

+1

Martin W Sachs wrote:
> 
> Tim,
> 
> First, I do not want to wait for V 2.0 for approval as an OASIS standard.
> My idea is to finish V 1.1 in a timely manner and get that approved as an
> OASIS standard while we work on V 2.0.  We need to settle on a target date
> for completion of V 1.1 as soon as possible and no later than the Oct. 1-3
> meeting. I also believe that it will be essential to coordinate the
> schedule for completion of V 1.1 with the MSG team so that both CPPA 1.1
> and MSG 1.1 are up for approval at the same time.  The reason is all the
> interlock points between the two standards.
> An approved V 1.1 should definitely have a positive marketing effect.
> 
> Public-review comments on V 1.1 will be extremely valuable. On the other
> hand, it is not obvious that collecting public-review comments on V 1.0 at
> this late date serves a significant purpose, given the number of things we
> already know we need to fix.  Sorting those comments to figure out what is
> new and what we already know about will certainly be a distraction. (I am,
> of course, assuming that there will be a significant number of comments;
> given the lack of activity on ebxml-cppa-comment, that is by no means
> certain.)  In any case, if we do start a public-review period on V 1.0, the
> commenters will expect responses and that we do something with the comment
> whether or not they affect the immediate approval process.
> 
> Karl Best will have to confirm this but my recollection is that the ebXML
> IPR policy was closely modelled on the OASIS policy if it isn't identical.
> If so, moving the spec to OASIS should have little or no IPR  impact on
> implementers.
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> "Collier, Timothy R" <timothy.r.collier@intel.com> on 08/24/2001 04:35:54
> PM
> 
> To:   ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc:
> Subject:  FW: OASIS schedule update
> 
> Dale,  Marty, All,
> 
> I am  happy to go with the flow, but from what I read of Lisa's mail, it
> seemed to  indicate that the comments could not force changes to the
> reviewed spec.
> 
> 3. The timeline of number 2 gives us a  nice cushion to get a lot public
> comments before it goes out for membership  review.  According to Karl, the
> specification that is sent out for review  is the specification that is
> balloted with no changes allowed in  between.
> 
> So, I don't see how that could have a  resource impact.
> 
>  Now I do  wonderif by having  the spec as an OASIS standard, it makes a
> difference to implementers.  Like  are the IP rules for use of the ebXML
> standard the same as the rules  of use for an OASIS standard?  If by moving
> it to an approved OASIS  standard it buys the users something, then I would
> think that would be  useful.
> 
> Also, I am a little concerned that if we wait for v2.0,  the delay in
> having a standard could be a problem for the end users.   Thinking about
> the timeline, we are what 16 months from the end of the CPP/A  v2.0 TC?  So
> that would roughly put it in January of 2003, it then goes  to OASIS
> membership by Feb 2003, they have 30 days to comment, then the  balloting
> is April 2003.  Are the end users willing to wait?  Are we  opening up a
> window for other standards bodies to release things that compete in  the
> interim?  Would having a v1.1 provide at least a marketing opportunity  to
> try to maintain momentum?
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Carnahan  [mailto:lisa.carnahan@nist.gov]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:47  PM
> To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc:  karl.best@oasis-open.org
> Subject: OASIS schedule  update
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I spoke with Karl Best this morning  regarding the schedule for submitting
> specs for an OASIS Membership vote.   What I said yesterday was wrong
> regarding making a submission at the end of  September.
> 
> The Process is as follows: (excerpted from
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml .  See the link for the
> complete text)
> Section 2. Standards Process
> ...Upon resolution of  the TC to move the specification forward, its chair
> shall submit the following  items to OASIS:
> (a) a formal specification that is a valid member of its  type;
> (b) appropriate documentation for the specification;
> (c) a clear  English-language summary of the specification;
> (d) certification by at least  three OASIS member organizations that they
> are successfully using the  specification;
> (e) an account of or pointer to votes and comments received  in any earlier
> attempts to standardize substantially the same specification,  together
> with the originating TC's response to each comment;
> f) a pointer to  the publicly visible comments archive for the originating
> TC; and
> (g) a  statement from the chair of the TC certifying that all members of
> the TC have  been provided with a copy of the OASIS IPR policy.
> 
> Thirty days shall be  allowed for administrative processing of a proposed
> standard.
> The proposal  shall be submitted to the OASIS membership for review at the
> beginning of the  first calendar quarter following the 30 days allocated
> for administrative  review.
> At the beginning of the next calendar quarter, the  proposal shall be
> submitted to the voting members of OASIS, who shall have  thirty days to
> return a ballot approving or disapproving the proposal.
> .....
> 
> What does this mean to us?
> 1.  Since we won't have  something ready to submit to Karl by September1
> (thirty days before October 1),  we won't have a spec ready for membership
> review October 1.
> 2. Our next OASIS  deadline is December 1.  If we submit a spec to Karl by
> December 1, then he  will send it out for review January 1.  The ballot for
> OASIS Membership  vote will then take place April 1.
> 3. The timeline of number 2 gives  us a nice cushion to get a lot public
> comments before it goes out for membership  review.  According to Karl, the
> specification that is sent out for review  is the specification that is
> balloted with no changes allowed in  between.
> 
> (Karl: please correct me if I'm  wrong)
> --lisa
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>