RE: [regrep] minutes of last meeting

["Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>]

Thanks for the clarification Lisa.  I agree with all of your statements.  In
this context, and as you describe their activities here, the subteam makes
more sense.  I echo Lisa's statement that if any of you made comments prior
to the TC vote in Dec that were not addressed to your satisfaction, please
re-state them now during this formal review period.  

Please sign me up as a volunteer to help triage the formal comments and to
assist in managing the comments.  I have yet to see a new list be formed.
Is there one already out there?  Have I missed it?

Thanks, Joel

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Carnahan [mailto:lisa.carnahan@nist.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:34 PM
To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [regrep] minutes of last meeting



More clarification on the comment resolution process:

The OASIS Process does not require us to produce a formal document on 
comment resolution as a result of the Review Period.  (However the Process 
does require formal comment resolution on any comments accompanying a NO 
vote in an OASIS ballot.)
Our TC should have a formal mechanism to resolve the comments that are made 
during the current OASIS Review Period of our V2 specifications under the 
OASIS Process.   A subteam will be used to identify, uniquely number and 
discuss the proposed resolution to  comments made during the Review 
Period.  (Any TC member can be a member of this subteam.)  The proposed 
resolution will then be discussed by the TC at the next conference call of 
the TC ('next' relative to the completion of the proposed resolution).  If 
the TC agrees with the proposed resolution, then the subteam will indicate 
that the comment/resolution has been finalized.  Otherwise the TC will 
further discuss the resolution either in the conference call or on the 
mailing list.  The purpose of the subteam is to provide a starting point 
for the resolution of the comment and manage the process.  The subteam's 
work does not preclude discussion regarding a specific comment on the Big 
Registry list from occurring.  The creation of the subteam is in 
recognition that we should have a formal process to handle  comments that 
are made as a result of the OASIS Process.

My own opinion:  Joel has indicated that his comments referenced at the URL 
below are to be considered formal comments made during the current Review 
Period under the OASIS Process.    We should accept them as formal 
comments, uniquely number each one and use the process above for 
resolution.  However I disagree with Joel that we as a TC should go back 
and review all the comments made during the TC V2 vote and consider them 
formal comments.  Those comments were not made during the formal Review 
Period.  I would encourage anyone who made comments during the TC V2 vote 
and who wishes them to be made formal comments under the current Review 
Period, to follow Joel's lead and send email to the list indicating that 
his/her comments (with a referenced URL) be taken as formal comments.

Obviously our TC should always be in a mode where we are looking at 
comments made at any time and considering them.  However for purpose of the 
OASIS Process, we should distinguish between those comments that are made 
during the Review Period under the OASIS Process and those that are not.

Perhaps we can discuss this more on Thursday...

--lisa

At 06:57 AM 3/5/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Team:
>
>Thanks for the minutes.
>
>I disagree that comments should be "resolved by a sub-team of members."
>They could be collected and managed by a sub-team of members but resolution
>of issues should be done by the TC.  With only a handful of comments today,
>at this point in time, I do not even believe that this new sub-team list is
>required.
>
>I submitted several comments along with my abstention note during the Dec
TC
>voting period.  Please reference,
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200112/msg00039.html.  Some of
>the issues outlined by my comments have been addressed already while some
>were ignored.  I would appreciate it if those comments were included in the
>collected list as well.  I would also greatly appreciate it if all TC
review
>comments that were received from other reviewers prior to the V2 vote in
>December were scrubbed to ensure that they are also dealt with completely
in
>the V2 spec's or they also should be included in this current comment list.
>
>Thanks,
>Joel
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lisa Carnahan [mailto:lisa.carnahan@nist.gov]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:23 AM
>To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [regrep] minutes of last meeting
>
>
>Minutes of the OASIS/ebXML Registry Technical Committee Meeting
>Conference Call - February 21
>
>Attendees:
>Lisa Carnahan, NIST
>Suresh Damodaran Sterling Commerce
>Mike DeNicola Fujitsu
>Anne Fischer Drummond Group
>Sally Fuger Individual Member
>Farrukh Najmi Sun Microsystems
>Joel Neu Vitria Technologies
>Sanjay Patil IONA
>Neal Smith Individual Member
>Nikola Stojanovic Individual Member
>
>1. CC Review Update - the CC Review Subteam is continuing its work in
>pulling out the registry requirements/expectations from the CC Technical
>Specification.  The Subteam is developing a table that defines each
>requirement.  For each requirement the subteam is further defining how the
>V2 RIM/RS satisfies the requirement, or indicates if the specs do not
>satisfy the requirement.  Currently the Subteam does not see any
>'showstoppers'.  The Subteam meets the Wednesday (2:00 Eastern) prior to
>the TC meeting on Thursday.
>
>2. Method for handling public comments - The TC developed a method for
>handling public comments regarding the V2 RIM/RS.  (As of the meeting,
>there had been only one set of comments.)  Comments will be resolved by a
>subteam of TC members using a mailing list.  Initial volunteers for the
>subteam are Nikola, Farrukh and Sanjay.  Farrukh volunteered to identify
>the comments and uniquely number them. (Duane's comments came via our
>regular mailing list, rather than the official comment list - therefor, we
>need to be sure to formally identify comments from all sources.)
>
>3, V3 Priorities - The team reviewed the list of candidate items for V3
>work.  Neil Smith will make (has made?) the agreed changes to the
>list.  Most of the changes were either renaming changes or consolidation
>changes.  The following members listed their priorities/interests based on
>the list (prior to any changes):
>Farrukh - 12, 7, 18, 5, 8
>Nikola - 11
>Sanjay - 10, 6, 15
>Lisa and Sally - 3
>
>Anyone else with an opinion regarding priorities should send email to the
>list.
>
>3. Criteria for determining V3 Work items - The TC discussed some
>subjective criteria that we should use in discussing our priorities of work
>items.  The following list was developed: (no implied relevance to order)
>-Maturity of base specifications on which our specifications may rely.
>-Ease in which the item may be addressed given the V2 specs (low lying
>fruit)
>-Level of effort required versus payoff of addressing
>-The Use case for the item
>-Level of interest by TC members to address item
>
>4. We will be discussing (and hopefully) making initial decisions regarding
>our top items at the next conference call.  Our goal is to have initial
>proposals done by April 15.
>
>5 Next conference call is Thursday, March 7th.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>