[wsrp] Ballot results and next steps

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

The results of the ballot about whether
to focus on submitting WSRP for consideration as an OASIS std by July 15
passed with a vote tally of:
  14 - YES
    8 - NO
    1 - ABSTAIN

In reflecting on the discussion surrounding
this ballot, I think that we as a TC are saying that we have made a significant
effort to align concepts (and in some cases data values) and test interoperability
between WSRP and JSR 168, but that the schedule for WSRP should not be
constrained by that adopted for JSR 168. I think both of these are appropriate
as they demonstrate that we desire to liaison with other relevant standards
efforts, but as a web service standard are not tied to any one particular
platform. This also goes along with the efforts by both the WSDL and Interoperability
subcommittees to include non-Java platforms, in particular .NET, in the
ongoing testing.

The steps needed to submit WSRP to OASIS
by July 15 include re-approval of the updated spec as a Committee Specification
(requires a 2/3 vote) and a TC vote to submit the Committee Specification
(simple majority required). Considering other recent comments to me, discussed
next, I will plan to open two ballots for these two questions.

I was recently approached with the comment
that the application of our errata to the specification should kick off
another 30-day public review cycle of the modified specification. I have
carefully read the TC process document and asked  OASIS TC Administrators
when such a second review cycle is required. Their response(s) agreed with
my reading that additional public review cycles are to be initiated whenever
one or more of the following is true:
  - The TC votes to start an additional
review cycle
  - Substantive changes are made
to the specification
  - Changes are made outside of
comments received on the specification (regardless of the comment's source)

I would assert that all the recently
applied changes were as a result of comments received. We, as the TC, need
to decide whether or not any of the changes rises to the level of a substantive
change to the spec. As a result of this, I will phrase the second ballot
such that its options are either submitting to OASIS or starting a second
public review cycle. 

Personally, I think that the only change
that could rise to this level is errata item #27, dealing with namespacing.
As I stepped back to consider this change, it was clear that there was
no change in the concepts of the specification, but that there was a syntax
change which responded to a comment about the previous syntax obscuring
the underlying token. As such, I do not think it rises to the substantive
change level.

Rich Thompson