RE: [ebxml-jc] TC standard process guideline changes

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

[...]
OASIS standard process - how should we handle issues raised during
review

Karl mentioned that he would welcome a list of procedural changes
that at least one of us thought would enhance the TC specification
submission process. He offered to submit these eventually to 
the OASIS board for consideration.

Here were the suggestions I thought were made. 
Please add any I forgot. Or put your version up
if you have a more specific alteration.

1. Shorten the current public review period from 90 days down to
some smaller value, where value might be 60 days, 30 days.

2. Increase the number of yearly submission slots from 4 (quarterly) to
some greater number, where 12 (monthly) was explicitly suggested. 

3. Allow a TC approval vote to be followed by an errata sheet made
available
for the public review, indicating what was to be fixed and what the fix
would be.
[Would errata sheet be voted on? Question I meant to ask Ian.]

4. Allow a final editorial stage after both TC and OASIS approval that
could
fix editorial shortcomings before Oasis publication, where the scope of 
"shortcomings" was to be defined somehow (punctuation, spelling, changed
URI,
diction, and whatever else is agreed to be so revisable). 
These proofreading and small editorial changes would not
require approval by OASIS membership or by the TC. (Possibly some right
of refusal might be added here-- an afterthought.)

5. Review the ebTWG process flow to see if it might add something.
Brian Hayes can explain this more fully.

[...]