Re: CMIS request for Committee Specification Ballot and Submission Ballot

[Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>]

Please note that the date of approval noted on the specification is 11 February; this is incorrect. Also, since the public review did not end until 12 February it's not possible for the TC to move this forward any time prior to 13 February.

Please make sure that when you approve this as a new Committee Draft to make sure the date is properly noted in both the title area as well as the running footer. Also, the links to the previous version documents aren't correct; they use 'cd06' rather than 'CD06'.

Regards,

Mary





On Feb 16, 2010, at 2:03 AM, <Choy_David@emc.com> <Choy_David@emc.com> wrote:

> Hi Mary,
> 
> The CMIS TC would like to request a Committee Specification ballot for
> CD07
> (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cmis/download.php/36412/CM
> IS-cd07.zip) and a simultaneous ballot for submitting the specification
> for approval as an OASIS Standard.
> 
> All CD07 changes from the Public Review Draft CD06 are marked in the
> file cmis-spec-v1.0-changes.doc/pdf. There is no substantive change.
> The TC has approved CD07 as a Committee Draft, and passed a motion to
> request the above ballots. The voting is recorded in
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cmis/download.php/36376/mee
> ting%20minutes%202010-02-12.txt.
> 
> As required for the submission ballot, three Statements of Use have been
> submitted by TC members:
> - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cmis/200912/msg00047.html
> - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cmis/200912/msg00089.html
> - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cmis/201001/msg00521.html
> 
> A summary of all the public comments received since the close of the
> 60-day Public Review in December, and their disposition, is posted at
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cmis/download.php/36411/Sum
> mary%20of%20Public%20Comments%20-%202.docx.
> No comment was received during the recent 15-day Public Review that is
> within the scope of the review.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> david