Re: [ubl] 3th public review

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk:]

| At the risk of being controversial (as usual :-( ) I'd question
| whether point three is in line with OASIS rules about openness :-)
| - just read the OASIS copyright on the schema files. And point
| four seems to be contrary to process but that seems more debatable
| to me. Point one seems contrary to the rules about an SC too (it
| can only recommend, not decide on the TC's behalf).

Peter's message was advisory: we had inquired about the impact of
another public review on a large set of users (the entire public
sector of Denmark), and his answer (modulo language issues) gave
us what we needed to make a decision.  Note that going through
another public review cycle will not only correct a couple of what
appear to be serious problems in PRD2 but will also allow us to
dispose of a number of less urgent issues that would otherwise
have had to wait for the next minor version release.

It will most likely take me a few days to provide complete minutes
of this week's meeting in Montréal, but here's the workflow we
agreed on yesterday, with two other representatives of the Danish
government in attendance:

 - JB produces a detailed schedule of this review cycle ASAP

 - UBL PSC decides the disposition of issues 11 and 15

 - As soon as the PSC has disposed of 11 and 15, TM publishes the
   PRD3 change log (including the implementation of a number of
   other changes that would otherwise have been deferred till 2.1)

 - PB changes the spreadsheets per the change log and generates a
   new set of schemas

 - In parallel, MG manually revises the PRD2 schemas per the
   change log to produce a parallel set of schemas

 - PT converts both sets of schemas to ASN.1 and performs a diff
   for Q/A purposes

 - When we're satisfied that the schemas have been correctly
   revised, we put the resulting PRD3 to a vote and move to public
   review

Note that these decisions, including the decision to allow the UBL
PSC to determine the disposition of issues 11 and 15, were all
made in a regularly scheduled and quorate UBL TC meeting.

Jon