Re: FW: re Norbert's remarks

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

Norert wrote:
| I believe the proper thing is to discuss this via the actc and workprocess 
| list and not state individual perspectives as consensus (I am also guilty
| here). 
| I for one, as my previous e-mail to the indicates, believe that a
| specification 
| per se can be subject of a TC.
| 
| I personally believe that the subject of discours *IS* tpaML
| as drafted by IBM and also believe that the TC itself and its scope 
| as such is proper (I agree that the issue of XML.org and 
| submission/standardization may be unfortunate wording).

The Call is quite clear that the subject is Trading Partner
Agreements, not TPAML.  I do not claim that the discussion
group is improper, only that we should adhere to the terms
of the Call.

It's another matter entirely whether the terms of the original
request would have been legitimate in a Call, but we don't have
to worry about that wrt tpaml. 

best regards, Terry