[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Results of voting on ECF 3.0
I congratulate the TC on this accomplishment. I add my thanks to drafting team for their amazing effort. Further, I would like to thank John Greacen and Tom Clarke for their leadership in making sure the many, many decisions of the TC were accurately reflected in the resulting work product!
A voice of thanks is also due to Roger Winters for his editing and his focus on the need for the technical to be understandable as practical to the court community.
Further, I think a word of ackwoledgent must be brought to the Integrated Justice TC for their work on naming and design rules and deliverable packaging that so well supported the modular approach used.
Lastly, I would like again to thank to entire TC especially those who provided input time and time again for their perseverance in bringing this to a sucessful not end but beginning.
Donald L. Bergeron
From: John M. Greacen
I am delighted to report that the Technical
Committee’s voting members have overwhelmingly approved ECF 3.0, its
executive summary, and the signature and messaging profiles as committee drafts
for recommendation to the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee as a proposed
standard. Congratulations to all of us for bringing ECF 3.0 to this stage
of maturity. Many of us who have labored for almost six years on this
project doubted at many junctures that this day would ever arrive. I
particularly wish to thank Eric Tingom,
There were three negative votes. All three expressed the view that ECF 3.0 is premature for adoption as a national standard. I personally believe that all members of the TC agree that testing is required before ECF 3.0 is ready for prime time. The Joint Tech Committee’s process also recognizes this. We are recommending that the Joint Tech Committee approve ECF 3.0 as a “proposed standard” for the purpose of widespread review and testing of the specification in operational settings. The Joint Tech Committee’s process calls for a second level of approval – as a “recommended standard” – once that testing has been done, the inevitable modifications that such testing will disclose have been made, and the modified specification has been shown to support interoperable implementations. In the executive summary, we explicitly request the Joint Tech Committee’s assistance in conducting the necessary implementation and interoperability tests.
Consequently, although their votes will continue to be recorded as “no”s, I personally choose to interpret the statements of the three dissenters as supporting the TC’s approval of ECF 3.0 as a committee draft ready for implementation and interoperability testing, which was the question before the TC.
John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC