[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [business-transaction] Issue 89
> I'm getting distant from the details of this one, but my view on > procedure, with the necessary declaration of my bias, is > > a) delay of the spec for this item would not be justified > > b) that the proposed insertion, which Bill Pope summarized well a couple > of days ago, does not undermine or alter the central thrust or details > of any other part of the specification, and continues in my view to be a > useful placeholder, optional and at worst harmless (and at best very > useful). > > c) that the proposed insertion is not inherently complex or novel in > content > > d) that votes exist to decide differences, and that a split vote on this > issue is not going to create civil war, nor I assume, lead anyone to > vote against the whole spec (whether the insertion is in or out). > > ... so, why don't we vote on counterposed (mutually exclusive) > proposals, one of which is defer to the future, as we have done with > other issues, and the other is to adopt whatever the latest text is that > the pro's are in favour of -- and be done with it? If we vote to not defer does that automatically mean we agree with the insertion of the text? I hope not. We don't have a problem with voting on whether we should defer to future *and* then (if necessary) vote on whether to accept/reject the proposed solution to 89. But these are not mutually exclusive votes. > > I would have thought that this could either be done via telecon + > e-mail, or at the F2F, and then we can all move on to making BTP known > and, I hope, widely adopted in the industry. > > If we finalized this issue at the F2F then we do have more time to > discuss it -- I presume that the next three weeks allows quite a lot of > further discussion, does it not? > > Yours, > > Alastair > > William Z Pope wrote: > > > Apologies to the participants but it is worth making visible to > > a wider audience this point from email on the bt-spec list. > > Paraphrasing from the ongoing conversation on Issue 89 ... > > > > We (the TC) need to spend more time discussing this before > > voting on it. > > > > Which re-raises the issue that there is no guarantee we will > > have made enough progress on this before the (self-imposed) > > 1.0 deadline. In that case how do we proceed? Vote on what > > may be insufficient knowledge, delay the spec, or postpone > > the vote? > > > > I'm posing the question at this point so people can think about > > it. We are not, quite, at the point where that decision must > > be made but it's coming soon. > > > > William Z Pope > > zpope@pobox.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC