FW: OASIS schedule update

["Collier, Timothy R" <timothy.r.collier@intel.com>]

Dale, Marty, All,

 

I am happy to go with the flow, but from what I read of Lisa's mail, it seemed to indicate that the comments could not force changes to the reviewed spec. 

 

 

3. The timeline of number 2 gives us a nice cushion to get a lot public comments before it goes out for membership review.  According to Karl, the specification that is sent out for review is the specification that is balloted with no changes allowed in between.

 

So, I don't see how that could have a resource impact. 

 Now I do wonder if by having the spec as an OASIS standard, it makes a difference to implementers.  Like are the IP rules for use of the ebXML standard the same as the rules of use for an OASIS standard?  If by moving it to an approved OASIS standard it buys the users something, then I would think that would be useful. 

 

Also, I am a little concerned that if we wait for v2.0, the delay in having a standard could be a problem for the end users.  Thinking about the timeline, we are what 16 months from the end of the CPP/A v2.0 TC?  So that would roughly put it in January of 2003, it then goes to OASIS membership by Feb 2003, they have 30 days to comment, then the balloting is April 2003.  Are the end users willing to wait?  Are we opening up a window for other standards bodies to release things that compete in the interim?  Would having a v1.1 provide at least a marketing opportunity to try to maintain momentum?

 

 

Tim

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Carnahan [mailto:lisa.carnahan@nist.gov]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:47 PM
To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: karl.best@oasis-open.org
Subject: OASIS schedule update

Hello All,

I spoke with Karl Best this morning 
regarding the schedule for submitting specs for an OASIS Membership vote.  
What I said yesterday was wrong regarding making a submission at the end of 
September.  

The Process is as follows: (excerpted from 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml .  See the link for the 
complete text)
Section 2. Standards Process
...Upon resolution of 
the TC to move the specification forward, its chair shall submit the following 
items to OASIS: 
(a) a formal specification that is a valid member of its 
type; 
(b) appropriate documentation for the specification; 
(c) a clear 
English-language summary of the specification; 
(d) certification by at least 
three OASIS member organizations that they are successfully using the 
specification; 
(e) an account of or pointer to votes and comments received 
in any earlier attempts to standardize substantially the same specification, 
together with the originating TC's response to each comment; 
f) a pointer to 
the publicly visible comments archive for the originating TC; and 
(g) a 
statement from the chair of the TC certifying that all members of the TC have 
been provided with a copy of the OASIS IPR policy. 

Thirty days shall be 
allowed for administrative processing of a proposed standard. 
The proposal 
shall be submitted to the OASIS membership for review at the beginning of the 
first calendar quarter following the 30 days allocated for administrative 
review.  
At the beginning of the next calendar quarter, the 
proposal shall be submitted to the voting members of OASIS, who shall have 
thirty days to return a ballot approving or disapproving the proposal. 
.....

What does this mean to us?
1.  Since we won't have 
something ready to submit to Karl by September1 (thirty days before October 1), 
we won't have a spec ready for membership review October 1.
2. Our next OASIS 
deadline is December 1.  If we submit a spec to Karl by December 1, then he 
will send it out for review January 1.  The ballot for OASIS Membership 
vote will then take place April 1.  
3. The timeline of number 2 gives 
us a nice cushion to get a lot public comments before it goes out for membership 
review.  According to Karl, the specification that is sent out for review 
is the specification that is balloted with no changes allowed in 
between.

(Karl: please correct me if I'm 
wrong)
--lisa