Re: [ebxml-msg] Edit Items.

[Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com>]

David,

This type of closing the issues list, including items submitted against the 1.09 document, does not reflect an attempt to put forward the best possible document.  I disagree with your interpretation of those teleconference votes as a closing of the issues list or a narrowing of possible submissions to that list.  I suggest we continue to resolve the editorial issues in this document.  At the very least, we must deal with conflicts in the document and issues remaining from previous rounds of comments.

thanx,
    doug

David Fischer wrote:

 We already voted NOT to do this kind of editorial round again. Excerpt from Conference Call 1-22-02    Motion:Following the validation of the specifications, if any clarifications to the    specification are required, we will ballot that specification for consideration for    submission prior to submitting to OASIS. – Bob, second: David F.

Question:What do we mean by freezing technical changes?(Doug)Changing PositiveInteger to nonNegativeInteger is correcting

an inconsistency not a technical change.

 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Friendly Amendment:Voting would be to consider any errata

from items received or implementation experience before it is

submitted to the OASIS membership.These will be voted on as a new TC specification. – Chris.  Bob did not accept.

Comment:We need a Change Control Officer for the next 6 weeks – Ian. (Doug agree).

Ian – any objections (no) motion passes.
 

  Most of the items marked as Disagree are to comply with the vote cited above. These items are not *correcting an inconsistency* nor *required clarifications*. We can deal with this kind of thing in v3.0. I would like to withdraw my submission titled ebMS_v2_0revA.pdf.  Ian, please do not post to the web site.Regards,David FischerDrummond Group.