Re: [chairs] No more Committee Specifications?

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Karl,

Ok - that clarifies the document stuff - but
maybe we should have an alternate name for
those who are intending to move theirs forward,
afterall - I suspect this is the majority.

I see how Committee Draft works as the staging
point.  Then maybe after the 30 days review and
update - this should be a Committee Reviewed Draft?
Some fine tuning would help.

On the voting front - having the ability to vote 
either to approve the specification, or to approve it
and submit to OASIS membership - as single steps - 
pick the one you want to do - would certainly
help with vote logistics.

On the verification statements - a suggestion would
be -  3 member companies / and / or - open source
implementation with certification from a fielded 
project and results.

With the later - some discretion I think should apply,
so OASIS could ask for additional validations / or
details (white papers are good) and delay the 
process accordingly - if it felt there was
not ample enough on the first pass to provide an
equivalent level of adoption.   I feel this needs to
have the right balance - so that abuse can be 
prevented - while not stifling emerging technology
and making it still-born.

I definately appreciate your endeavours to improve
this all for us.

Thanks, DW.