re: Agenda for 7/13 meeting

["John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>]

Folks,
I am thinking about the process for acceptance of the subcommittee's report,
particularly in the face of a possible counter-report from me. As several know,
I haven't heard back from a memo that I sent some time ago, so I have no idea if
there is need for a dissenting report or not. The memo itemized in detail around
a dozen significant differences, some small but others large issues all within
the subcommittee's scope, and all items that really must be part of the first
draft Specification. I want the process to provide me an opportunity, if
necessary, to submit am alternative report.

Insofar as the timing of the Requirements document v  Structural document, I'm
betting that loads of good ideas will be found at CoALa/Monterrey, many of which
ought to be reflected in our requirements statement if not our technical
specification. So in terms of dates, as Dan requested in another memo, I think
an August date for the subcommittee report should be expected, September to
review, October to re-write as necessary, November to post, and December for
discussion and voting. For the Requirements document, I think a "Working Draft"
should be published after a full review during some specific number of telecons,
with all its subsequent work following the same kind of schedule as for the
Specification. Please let me remind those thinking these to be inordinately long
periods of time, that each month represents a mere 8 hours of discussion -- one
business day.

I do NOT think a "Working Draft" of any technical specification should be
published at this time. Rather, publishing subcommittee work as a Technical
Report could work for me if so desired by the committee(s), however I do request
that I be provided a fair opportunity to contribute via a Dissenting Technical
Report; to publish it at the same time as the subcommittee's own Technical
Report; and to openly debate the relative merits of the competing proposals.
Now, in the event that all the issues I've raised are addressed by the
subcommittee's Technical Report, then gladly and with relief, would I join as a
co-author. However I don't think that would speed up the timeline significantly,
neither would it be slowed by addressing alternative views for the
Specification.

Thanks.
John



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dr. Laurence Leff [mailto:D-Leff@wiu.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 7:30 PM
>To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Agenda for upcoming meeting from the
>OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Contracts Technical Committee
>Secretary (File id: @@2408)
>
>
>                            Agenda for Conference Call
>            Electronic Contracts Technical Committee of the
>                   OASIS Legal XML Member Section
>
>                             July 13th 2004
>                              18:00 Eastern
>                Dial 512 225 3050  - Use 84759# for Pin Code (*)
>
>18:00:00 Tue Jul 13 2004 in America/New_York converts to
>22:00:00 Tue Jul 13 2004 in GMT
>
>
>Welcome and Roll Call
>
>1.  Review our requirements document with the goal of reaching closure
>    and/or determining what changes must be made so that we could vote on it.
>
>2)  Determine how and when to achieve a votable submission on structural
>    markup.
>
>New Business
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
>of the OASIS TC), go to
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/member
s/leave_workgroup.php.