Re: [emergency] Draft Reply To PPW Letter

["R. Allen Wyke" <emtc@nc.rr.com>]

On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 10:47, Art Botterell wrote:
> Even by your own logic... having admitted that the TC has yet to 
> address what you call the "how" issue, how can you possibly claim 
> that the TC believes one approach is "more friendly" than another? 
> (And what does "more friendly" mean, anyway?)  It seems like we're 
> getting way ahead of ourselves here.

Ok, so maybe that is the optimist in me, but considering all the angst
this issue has caused, I can't imagine the TC would embark on anything
that wouldn't be more "friendly" than the discussions we have had at
this point. 

> More fundamentally, why send this letter at all?  Especially to a 
> large membership organization like PPW, where it can be expected to 
> have the practical effect of a public statement?  We're under no 
> obligation to reply to the PPW letter at any particular time, or 
> ever.  And we're certainly not required to do so in a way that would 
> preempt or prejudice the TC's deliberations.

I actually asked this very same question to them, and it is at their
request that I reply summarizing what we talked about and inviting them
to further participate.

> - Art
> 
> PS - Just a detail... but if I remember correctly, the TC adopted the 
> current Committee Specification (as it was called at the time) not at 
> the 7/15 meeting but a month later on the 8/12 conference call.

You are correct - typo. Meant to say that we agreed at the 7/15 meeting
that the current spec, minus the minor edits we discussed at that
meeting, was what we were going to vote on to ratify. I will correct in
the letter.

> 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/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
-- 
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency