| Hi Kris,
Each time the TC votes to approve a document, it does so as a 'Committee Draft.' Those iterations are consecutively numbered. Since the document was changed since CD01 was created and approved, then next milestone is CD02. There is no requirement that CD01 be submitted for Public Review; oftentimes TCs will approve several CDs before submitting for Public Review. The document is then CD##/Public Review 01 to be precise but not required.
As excited as the TC is about getting to Public Review, it's my job to ensure that the TC Process Policy is honored and that no short-cuts or side-steps are taken. Sometimes that makes me the bad cop, which is why I'm always willing to answer any and all questions at any time so that there are no surprises when the TC is ready to begin the next leg of its journey.
Also please be sure that all required components are included in the zip file; if there isn't a namespace document included in the review it will be rejected again.
Thanks,
Mary
On Jun 16, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Kristen James Eberlein wrote:
The committee voted to approve what we called CD 01, take 2. It
consisted of what we had previously submitted -- formatting adjusted to
meet OASIS style regulations-- plus the following new topics:
- Normative references
- Non-normative references
- Formatting conventions in the XHTML versions of the specification
Do you want us to revise the minutes so that they clearly capture our
intention to approve "CD O1, take 2"? We can call that CD 02 if you
like; I do not think that revising the cover pages to be marked as CD
02 requires a TC vote; please advise me if I am wrong.
The TC's understanding was that the first draft released for public
review was by definition CD 01; is this incorrect?
We -- and the rest of the larger DITA community -- are truly eager to
get DITA 1.2 out of public review as quickly as we can. Please help us
do so.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 6/16/2010 2:32 PM, Mary McRae wrote:
AEFAEA20-B66D-423F-9E65-47A80C01D5B5@oasis-open.org" type="cite">It's my understanding that there were changes above and
beyond the XHTML formatting issues. The TC must approve the newly
revised CD01 R1 as CD02. The files must also be appropriately
identified, including the hypertext links that appear in the front
matter.
I don't know intention vs reality; if the motion was to approve
the XHTML version then that isn't sufficient. If the motion was to
approve CD02 then that wasn't properly captured.
Regards,
Mary
Mary P McRae
Director, Standards Development
Technical Committee Administrator
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
twitter: @fiberartisan #oasisopen
phone: 1.603.232.9090
Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.
On Jun 16, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Kristen James Eberlein wrote:
Mary,
the TC's intention was to vote to approve
the revised CD 01. What do the minutes need to say in order to convey
the intention properly and have the 60-day request approved? Or does
the contents of the submission ZIP simply need to be marked as CD 02?
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 6/16/2010 2:08 PM, Mary McRae wrote:
1D9964A7-AF00-443A-8F13-608599A2B8D8@oasis-open.org" type="cite">In looking at the meeting minutes, I do not see that the
TC voted to approve a new Committee Draft but that it okayed the XHTML
rendition, and the submission zip file still bears the CD01
designation. The request is therefore rejected.
Respectfully,
|