RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Non-Technical Executive Summary of ECF 3

Thank you Roger for your representation of this document and for fairly framing where we are with these two documents.

A few questions before the committee are… Which one communicates better to an intelligent but unenlightened person in the court, court management, technology and technology management communities? Which one leads and bridges from common language of the community to the language of the specification so to make reading the specification a less daunting experience? Would a hybrid be better? Should some of this wording and structure make its way into the work done by Nick Pope in the Road Map?

Oh, and yes there is some marketing and spin in the one I have proposed. There are other specs out there. This proposal attempts to emphasize the critical differences that make this specification more supportive of the court and the technology communities.

Regards,

Don

Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781

From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:04 PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Non-Technical Executive Summary of ECF 3

Dear People,

The attached document displays the changes that Don Bergeron would have us make in the "Lay Person's" guide to ECF 3.0 which was developed by a committee, except that I rewrote the document which Don submitted so it could be seen, using Word's "Track Changes," what, exactly, he would have us change in it. I decided that asking you to read both versions without the tool of "Track Changes" would have made it impossible for us to see the differences clearly.

When we first began the process, a committee was formed to work with a draft I had begun on my own, to explain ECF 3.0 to a non-technical audience of court decision makers such as judges, clerks, and administrators. I asked the committee at that time to submit to me their input as additions, changes, deletions in the text of the draft. Most were comfortable with doing so. Don sent me a commentary with observations and ideas about the document, but I was not comfortable about trying to develop Don's statements into textual changes--I could not possibly interpret his input correctly because it belonged to him. Accordingly, I asked Don if he would contribute specific changes as his input on improving the document. The document he submitted reorganized and rewrote some of the text of the committee document, but it also added headings and subheadings and sections and language of his own. However, it had not been prepared with Word's "Track Changes."

I believed the only way I could compare the version others had given input on with what Don gave me was to create this document, but using Word's "Track Changes" tool. Because I feared that would take substantial time and I have been fully occupied with other duties, I had put off doing that until today - I am glad it took me less time than I had imagined - about 3 hours was required. I am sorry to give you short turnaround to review it before tomorrow's meeting.

In this version of the document, the edits are marked with my initials, but they all belong to Don. Where he inserted comments, I have put them into the "Comment" fields in Word. I reproduced exactly what Don wrote, in order to be sure his suggested changes are correctly and completely represented for you to review. (One exception: I did not physically move the diagram created to show the MDEs, but I noted where Don would have them relocated.)

Separately, I will forward the document as it had been reviewed by the other members of the committee, so comparison can be made. The TC needs to discuss and decide what to do with these very different versions of a "layperson's guide."

Regards,

Roger Winters

legalxml-courtfiling message