[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [egov] OASIS E-GOV TC : ebXML Messaging BALLOT RESULT
Jouko, Joe, Jon, John, et al, Since I can't vote yet, I perhaps ought to keep my $.02 out, but it seems to me that the question of the word "single" no matter how you get to it, after a vote is called or called again, or at the appropriate time during discussion and debate, the problem is still there with the lack of qualification as to whether "single" means "only" or "at least one, reliable, messaging standard that can be depended upon to satisfy the needs." Similar problems arise when one uses the terms prior and previous without specifying the most immediate prior or previous instance of something, IOW "last," for terms such as address, or vote. One thing an E-Gov TC might consider as part of its scope is refining such qualifiers into a standard vocabularies, with accepted translations for localizations. It might even qualify as a requirement. Ciao, Rex At 10:56 AM +0200 2/13/04, Jouko Salonen wrote: >Joe, Jon, John >Agnostics are sometimes usefull, I agree. But we also need qualified >senior people who are able to carry the candle in windy places and >who have the strength to guide even in difficult situations. The >vote is therefore needed to give support for those who are strong >enough to make things happen. It is our duty, therefore, to vote, >even if we, according to our very nature as the "sapient", hesitate. > >I agree with Jon. > >-Jouko > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info] >Sent: 12. helmikuuta 2004 18:45 >To: Chiusano Joseph; John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk >Cc: egov@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [egov] OASIS E-GOV TC : ebXML Messaging BALLOT RESULT > > >Joe, > >Notice however that we already called for comments and review >of the document itself a while back - and also reviewed at the F2F. > >However - I'm not giving you a hard time for just now looking >at the detail in the document - being asked to vote on it >does of course focus the mind ; -) > >I won't speak for John on the overall rationale for the eGov TC >endorsing the document - but my sense is we are trying to >foster a continuing set of such work deliverables where >people can see that they have been thru a review process and >provide substantive informative analysis that they can draw from >for their own guidance and determination processes. > >Nothing can claim to be 100% the right answer - all we can do >is determine if something meets our overall requirements for >being objective and rigorous and that it is broadly pertainent >to eGov and therefore something we should be providing >guidance on. > >The question being answered in the case is >something along the lines of "What if I were to use ebMS for >eGov - what does that entail - and what are some answers?". > >Thanks, DW. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> >To: <John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk> >Cc: <egov@lists.oasis-open.org> >Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:45 AM >Subject: Re: [egov] OASIS E-GOV TC : ebXML Messaging BALLOT RESULT > > >> 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 >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of >the OASIS TC), go to >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov/members/leave_workgroup..php. >> >> > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the >roster of the OASIS TC), go to >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov/members/leave_workgroup..php. > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the >roster of the OASIS TC), go to >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov/members/leave_workgroup.php. -- Rex Brooks GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com Email: rexb@starbourne.com Tel: 510-849-2309 Fax: By Request
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]