I now attach my assessment of which comments
should, according to the TC Process, be ruled inadmissible, in as much as they do not address only text that has changed since the previous public review.
Given that the last iteration has been substantial textual revision since the last review (in 2009) and that many concepts and arguments are interlocking, this caution can be taken with a large pinch of salt
– but in the case that there are “stubborn” issues that won’t go away, we can possibly refer back to this…
Regards,
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel: +1.310.694.2278
From:
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of
Peter F Brown
Sent: Friday, 09 December, 2011 13:14
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Review of SOA-RAF Public Review Draft 2
Ken,
Article 3.2 of the OASIS TC Process states clearly:
“Changes made to a committee draft after a review must be clearly identified in any subsequent review, and
the subsequent review shall be limited in scope to changes made in the previous review.”
In making an initial examination of comments received to the latest review, I notice that many do not conform with this provision.
Given our need for celerity in completing the review process, can I humbly suggest that any comment that does not satisfy the formal requirement be summarily rejected, with the provision of the TC Process quoted
as the grounds…?
If agreed, I’d be happy to parse the list and identify the “culprits”….
Cheers,
Peter
|
|
Peter F Brown Independent Consultant |
|
Using Information Technologies to Empower and Transform |
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel: +1.310.694.2278
|
Member of:
|
||||
|
Follow me: |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
