Let me be specific. The OCCI presentation contains material from this TC that is in WD form. At the end or someplace convenient there should be a line that says something very close to: “This presentation contains working draft material developed by the OASIS SAF Technical Committee. This presentation does not necessarily reflect the views of the OASIS SAF TC or of OASIS.”
That way, the contributions of the SAF TC to the content is acknowledged (as it should be), but the SAF TC is not obligated and no insinuation of OASIS endorsement is made.
Please let me know if this is a problem.
Thanks,
Paul
Paul Lipton
VP, Industry Standards and Open Source
Member, CA Council for Technical Excellence
Phone (preferred number!): +1 215 539-2731
Mobile: +1 267 987-6887
<image001.gif>
THIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED OR OTHER LEGALLY PROTECTED INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE ADDRESSEE ONLY. IF YOU ARE NOT THE ADDRESSEE (OR SOMEONE THE ADDRESSEE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE), YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM COPYING, DISTRIBUTING OR OTHERWISE USING IT. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER AND RETURN IT AT OUR COST. THANK YOU.
OCCI was only one purpose, IMHO. We need a committee approved general version asap, too.
Thanks,
Paul (from mobile)
----- Original Message -----
From: Stavros.Isaiadis@uk.fujitsu.com <Stavros.Isaiadis@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: saf@lists.oasis-open.org <saf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tue Mar 16 05:10:15 2010
Subject: [saf] More on FAQ and slidedeck
Following my last email, we should finalize, motion, and vote on the FAQ on Thursday to accept it as a Committee Draft (Full Majority Vote -i.e. more than 50% of the voting members).
I am not sure if we should do the same with the slidedeck at this point as it is focused on OCCi interactions. If we generalize it for educational purposes then we should vote on it as well.
Thoughts?
Stavros