[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Soliciting response concerning our approach to "no"votes
Since the comments in the two "no" votes are on a matter that is not within
the specification, nor within this TC's power to address, we should request
OASIS to approve the specification as submitted.
Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************
Dale Moberg
<dmoberg@cycloneco To: "Cppalist (E-mail)" <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
mmerce.com> cc:
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Soliciting response concerning our approach to "no" votes
10/30/2002 11:20
AM
Hi
Karl Best called my attention to the TC vote
counts. The CPPA specification has over 10%
"Yes" votes for OASIS approval. The CPPA spec received
some-- two that I noticed-- "No" votes, still
far short of 10% "No" votes.
This "good news/bad news" situation means that
we need to respond to the "No" votes at:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-voting/200210/msg00046.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-voting/200210/msg00047.html
The process pertaining to this decision is the "old" one
for handling these negative votes given in the fourth
paragraph of Section 2 at:
http://oasis-open.org/committees/process_aug2001.shtml#sec2
which is:
"However, if negative votes amounting to less than 10 percent of the
voting membership have been cast, the negative votes and accompanying
comments, if any, shall be forwarded to the originating TC for
consideration. After notification of the results, the TC shall have 30
days to take one of the following actions by resolution: (x) request
OASIS to approve the specification as submitted despite the negative
votes, or (y) withdraw the submission entirely, or (z) submit an amended
specification, in which case the amended submission shall be considered
as if it were a new submission, except that information regarding
previous votes and any disposition of comments received in previous
votes shall accompany the amended submission. "
I think it is fair to summarize the explanations for both "No" votes
as involving dissatisfactions with the IPR situation for the OASIS ebXML
CPPA.
One comment proposes that the TC try to redo the specification in such
a way that the patents would not apply.
The TC has, of course, taken no position
on whether the patent does apply.
If we were to somehow redo the specification
so that the patent did not apply,
it seems to me that the TC would
need expert guidance, and even validation,
that the announced patents did not apply. So, we
would be forced to even more divert our
attention from technical concerns
to concerns with IPR and legal/political/economic ones.
However, we do need to discuss how we wish to proceed and let OASIS
know about option x, y or z above. The November 1 meeting will be
devoted to discussion. If you have an opinion on the matter, please
submit it to the list. The November 8 voting meeting must decide
which option to take on the "No" votes in accordance with OASIS process.
Dale Moberg
----------------------------------------------------------------
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