Re: [xcbf] Ballot failed, or new version started? Who has approvedthe version 2 draft?

["Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

Title:

John,

You seem confused about some of the facts. But I'll try 
to help clarify.

John Larmouth wrote:
> *If* we
> get technical agreement in the group on where we are heading re 
> Base64 and on what encoding rules are going to be used, I am sure I can 
> sort out the text.  But the agreement is essential. 
>  
It is 100% agreement that you have demanded. 0% NO votes is what
 you required for future changes. Let's not loose sight of that as we move
forward.

• We have super majority agreement on the text in the current
   XCBF 1.0 CS document.

• We have simple majority agreement on the text in the current
  v2 draft.

• XCBF 1.0 has been approved as an OASIS CS by the TC.

• XCBF 1.0 CS has been strengthened by a 30 day public review.
  Public comments have been addressed and approved by the TC.

• XCBF 1.0 CS has been approved for submission to OASIS for
  consideration as an OASIS Standard by the TC.

• The current v2 draft has already achieved technical agreement
  on the issues you cite above - seven of nine XCBF members
  who voted approved this text as a new CS in the last TC ballot.
  It is one vote shy of becoming a new CS.

So, enough whingeing, please. Let's see something positive to improve 
and progress the work. How would you change the current draft so 
that it is acceptable to 100% of the TC?

Please propose alternative text to replace or augment the text in the 
current v2 draft. To reach further agreement, the TC needs to see
a concrete proposal - the actual words you wish to see changed and 
your proposed alternative wording. 

When your proposed text meets with 100% approval of the TC, it 
should then be acceptable by your own stated requirements.  

Phil


> We can discuss how v2 (which I think Phil is keen on) should best be  progressed
> at a later date. 
>  
> John L 
>  
> Bancroft Scott wrote: 
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, John Larmouth wrote: 
> >  
> >  
> > > Hm.  Back to the drawying board on the Editor! 
> > > Pity. Paul would have 
> > > done a good job. 
> > >     
> >  
> >  
> > Do you have the bandwidth to do this, John?  Note that Phil has already 
> > done the vast majority of the work, and relatively little remains to be 
> > done. 
> >  
> > Bancroft 
> >  
> >  
> >   
>  
>