Re: [egov] OASIS E-GOV TC : ebXML Messaging BALLOT RESULT

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

John,

I certainly understand your frustration. I suspect part of the issue
with the ebXML Messaging document is that folks might not be clear on
exactly what they are voting on (while acknowledging the description in
the vote ballot) - the accuracy of the concepts, compliance with ebMS
2.0, etc. Also, what does having our TC's vote on this document (while
recognizing the value of our TC) say? That we approved the concepts?
That the members believe that ebMS should always be the first choice of
a messaging protocol in any federal project?

For example, I might have an issue with the following quote, particular
the word "single":

"The aim of the use of ebXML Messaging within Government is to provide a
single open-standards based enveloping and messaging protocol technology
that can be used for Service Delivery Requests and Response between all
the architectural components which interact within e-Government Service 
Delivery. 

Does this imply that, if I vote to approve this document, I believe that
(while acknowledging what an excellent standard ebMS 2.0 is) there
should be no other possible choices? In my professional position, my
duty is to remain vendor- and standards- agnostic, regardless of what
standards I am involved with creating, and how I feel about certain
standards.

So I hope that given this information, you might be able to clarify
further exactly what we're voting on, and the ramifications of that
vote.

Kind Regards,
Joe


John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk wrote:
> 
> It is with great regret that I have to tell you that  we did not reach
> quorum on the recent ballot on Graham Beaver's document.  Only 15 out
> of 41 members took the time to vote.   I won't name and shame those
> who didn't vote.
> 
> This I find deeply disappointing, firstly for Graham and the excellent
> effort he put into the document, and secondly for the future of our
> TC.   This was our first ballot and we fell at the first hurdle.  That
> doesn't inspire confidence for our future work.   Hopefully this will
> turn out to be just teething troubles and once we all get the hang of
> voting then we'll be OK in future.   If not well.......
> 
> I'm going to re-run this ballot and also put up a ballot on Eliot's
> Interoperability Services paper.   Please take the time to vote this
> time.
> 
> John