Re: [ubl] UBP 1.0 separate from UBL 1.0 SBS ?

["Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Sorry, when I say to keep it as it is I mean as it is in the last public review
with just the minimal editorial, non-substantive amendments.

Thanks

Steve

On 10/03/06, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK. Then I'd prefer to keep it as it is. Thanks Jon for clarification.
>
> All the best
>
> Steve
>
> On 09/03/06, jon.bosak@sun.com <jon.bosak@sun.com> wrote:
> > [stephengreenubl@gmail.com:]
> >
> > There may be a problem with the progress of the UBP directly to
> > ballot as candidate committee specification in that it only
> > underwent the second UBL-1.0-SBS public review (15 days) and has
> > not had a review as a standalone draft.
> >
> > Right.  It will have to start over (TC balloting and then 60-day
> > review).
> >
> > | If it does need to complete a 50 day review to be allowed to
> > | progress to committee specification ballot, how about we package
> > | it together with the UBP 2.0 which is at the stage of waiting for
> > | a vote to become a committee draft and public review
> > | draft. Perhaps the two would then be called UBP 1.0 and be
> > | packaged as one set of ebXML artifacts covering both UBL 1.0 and
> > | UBL 2.
> >
> > OK with me.  But note that if the UBP part is removed from 1.0
> > SBS, it will have to start over again, too.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> > at:
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
> >
>