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

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

John,

Thanks - I wasn't questioning our review of the document over the past
several months or its content (the content is fully clear, in my
opinion). What I was questioning is the wording of the vote:

"...do you agree for the TC to endorse this document and approve its
submission to other interested parties, eg the ebXML Messaging Services
TC, to take forward its recommendations?"

So I was grasping for the meaning behind "endorsing" the document - what
does "endorse" mean? - and "approving its submission" - on what basis is
this approval...the contents of the document? And what does it mean to
"take forward its recommendations" - to whom? On what basis? How?

I hope that clarifies my e-mail below a bit further.

Thanks,
Joe

John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk wrote:
> 
> Joe
> 
> We've discussed and reviewed this document at several meetings spread
> over the last 6 months and even the final draft was put our to the TC
> for comments before reaching this voting stage.    Also the wording of
> the voting resolution is in my opinion very explicit.    So I fail to
> see how you can say people might not be clear what they are voting
> for.
> 
> One of the main objectives of the TC is to agree government
> requirements for standards and then seek the best way of getting those
> requirements delivered.  this is an excellent example of that.  We
> have (or soon will have I hope) through this document an agreed
> requirement which we can take to other TCs to discuss implementation.
>  So this document itself is not going to become an OASIS standard,
> it's a feed into one(s) produced by other TCs.
> 
> I hope on reflection you will be able to support the resolution, if
> not I can only suggest you vote against it or abstain.
> 
> Regards,
> John
> 
>  "Chiusano Joseph"                                                 To
>  <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>   John.Borras@e-Envoy.gsi.gov.uk
> 
>  12/02/2004 15:45                                                  cc
>                              egov@lists.oasis-open.org
>                                                               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
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> 
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the
> Government Secure Intranet (GSI) virus scanning service supplied
> exclusively by Energis Communications in partnership with MessageLabs.
> 
> GSI users see
> http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf for
> further details. In case of problems, please call your organisational
> IT helpdesk.