OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

odata message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [odata] Proposal for OData Committee Spec Draft #2

Dear All,

I was hoping, someone else would jump up and propose something like this below. I did not do this myself, as I have no time targets/milestones to hold but others may. Personally I just want the v4 to be the best ever and that ideally all (at the time of publication) known defects are removed in that version of OpenData specification and not published same day alongside in an errata document pack. But other members may be impacted by such "lateness", so we will need to discuss.

On 2013-09-19 00:14 +02:00, Michael Pizzo wrote:
My proposal, for your consideration, is to stop processing known
editorial issues as errata and to direct the editors to prepare
new/clean versions of all five specifications (and any related
components within the three work products). At our meeting on September
25th (I would propose we block off 2 hours) we would discuss and vote on
any normative changes we wanted to apply, and review the final documents
on Thursday, October 2nd. By the end of the October 2nd meeting we would
seek committee approval to direct the OASIS Admin to initiate a 15 day
public review of this new CSD. Assuming no public comment on the few
normative changes we make we would then vote to have the OASIS Admin
prepare another week long TC Ballot to promote the new CS2. This would
put us in early/mid November, at which time we should have our
statements of use and can initiate the 60 day public review. That public
review would run through the vacation and complete mid-January, within
1-2 weeks of our current schedule but with a much cleaner set of documents.

I strongly second this proposal.
As a user of specs when implementing or building a service on top of it, I find it annoying and irritating to have a substantial errata document published alongside the main spec with a similar if not the same publication date.

I have asked Ram to add this to the agenda to discuss at out 8am PT 9/18
meeting, but I wanted to send it out to the TC ahead of time for

I am looking forward participating in this discussion later today.

All the best,

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]