RE: [ebxml-msg] Deadline

["Lund, Brad" <brad.lund@intel.com>]

+1+1

 

brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Collins [mailto:collinsc@sybase.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:22 AM
To: Miller, Robert (GXS); David Fischer; Ian. C. Jones (E-mail)
Cc: ebXML Msg
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Deadline

+1

 

Cliff

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Robert (GXS) [mailto:Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:02 AM
To: David Fischer; Ian. C. Jones (E-mail)
Cc: ebXML Msg
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Deadline

I agree with David's response to comment deadlines and to the specification as voted.

 

Cheers,

            Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:06 PM
To: Ian. C. Jones (E-mail)
Cc: ebXML Msg
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Deadline

Ian,

 

I seemed to be hearing on the call today that unless we include these late comments, the spec would be somehow flawed and not fit for public release?  I feel a little insulted, as should the 25 members who voted for the spec.  Why are we assuming the spec will be better for these comments?  We have worked hard on this spec and we have slipped deadlines several times to allow sufficient comment period.  We have produced a superior product and we should recognize it as such.

 

Today, we indicated a comment deadline of Jan 18?  Today was not a voting meeting and there was not a quorum.  On Dec 3 we voted and approved a deadline of Jan 11.  We confirmed that deadline again on Dec 17.  On Jan 22 we agreed to vote on clarifications, but we did not change any deadlines and we specifically did not accept "errata on items received or implementation experience".

 

Our deadline is already in the minutes of previous meetings and we should not consider anything after that date (or we will fail to submit this quarter too).  Our consideration should be to anything submitted before that date.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

David Fischer

Drummond Group.