[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [election-services] RE: [election-services-comment] PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS DISPOSITION
John – I agree with the actions indicated, basically rejecting all open
items. Taking in all the auditing requests for our next release is the right
thing to do and allows us to put 6.0 out for the common good. - Peter From: John Borras
[mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Attached are my Recommendations on the disposition of the latest
comments. Can I have you agreement or alternative suggestions
please. A positive response rather than agreement by silence would
be appreciated please …-) I should point out that Neal McBurnett, the originator of these
comments, is in the process of joining OASIS and the TC so we should look
forward to a full discussion with him about all this in the near future.
But at this stage the priority has to be to get this version of v6.0 agreed and
approved to serve the needs of EAC/NIST/IEEE P1622. Delaying it further
whilst we have an in-depth analysis of auditing requirements et al is not, IMO,
a wise move. We can use Neal’s expertise in that area to do a thorough
job over the coming months. John From: John Borras
[mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Only having had a reply from Sven, I can only assume the rest of
you are either on holiday, or are otherwise engaged, or are ……. Whatever the reason it’s clear that today’s call has to be
cancelled. And with holiday season fast approaching the chances of
finding a new date convenient to all for a call look slim. So let’s try
and clear these review by email, and ballot if necessary, please. I’ll
send out shortly a revised Disposition document with my Recommendations for
your agreement or otherwise. John From: John Borras
[mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Has anyone got a teleconference number we can use for today’s
call , if not can we all manage with Skype? John From: John Borras
[mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] To help focus our minds on these comments, I’ve prepared the
attached Disposition file and captured David’s comments below and inserted my
views. If you have time before the call on Thursday please add your
comments and re-circulate. John From: John Borras
[mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Hi All The comments from Neal McBurnett below are the only ones
received during this 15 day Public Review so now we have to decide how to
respond to them. Just to remind you of the process: -
Comments can only be accepted against the changes made in this
published version, ie comments made against other parts of the Spec are not
acceptable. -
The TC does not have to accept all comments, it has the right to
reject them if they so wish. -
If any substantive changes are made as a result of the comments
then the TC has to go round the loop again of approving a new version as a
Committee Draft and then publishing it for a new 15 day Public Review.
This loop is repeated until all comments have been satisfactorily incorporated
or dismissed. I don’t really want to hide
behind procedures to avoid any of them because they could be seen to be new
changes rather than variations on the same theme. David’s response
below suggest some/most of these are local profile issues rather than
mainstream EML ones and that may be a correct interpretation. However
let’s not forget that we have accepted that there is a need for major upgrade
to include audit requirements and we would do that for the next release, so an
answer at this stage could be to defer some/all of these comments until
then. Also note that any requests for example programs and interop tests
are outside of the scope of v6.0 . I suggest therefore we go
ahead with our TC call on Thursday to review these comments and decide how we
wish to respond to each of them. Can someone provide a conference call
number please? Just to remind you we have set the call for 14.30 CET/13.30
UK/8.30 EST (sorry Joe!). John From: David RR Webber
(XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] Neal, EML 530 is completely customizable with type code values
of your own choosing. I suspect what you desire can be provided
as "profiles" of prescribed code types. This would follow the same notes you make below for the 520.
Since these are all external to the schema - this would be covered by a
USA localization guidelines for implementers. Per comment 1) - the use you are suggesting is also such a
guideline - I'm not sure the XML element needs to be renamed as such. Per comment 2) - alternate name for candidates - I believe this is
already there - the name element type can be set to "Alternate" - in
xNL type. Similarly comments 3 thru 5 also constitutes localization
guidelines. I believe this is what we are seeing the P1622 will move to
publish in coordination with NIST and OASIS. I would suggest we can simply begin drafting an initial "how
to" document along those lines. Thanks, DW
-- This publicly archived list offers a means to provide
input to the OASIS Election and Voter Services TC. In order to verify user
consent to the Feedback License terms and to minimize spam in the list archive,
subscription is required before posting. Subscribe: election-services-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
Unsubscribe: election-services-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org List
help: election-services-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org List archive:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services-comment/ Feedback License:
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf List Guidelines:
http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php Committee:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=election |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]