Re: [soa-rm-ra] Process Question

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Actually, Jeff,

from 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-06-19.php#committeeDraft

The TC may conduct any number of review cycles (i.e. approval to send a 
Committee Draft to Public Review, collecting comments, making edits to 
the specification, etc.). The first public review of a specification 
must take place for a minimum of 60 days, and any subsequent reviews 
must be held for a minimum of 15 days. Changes made to a specification 
after a review must be clearly identified in any subsequent review, and 
the subsequent review shall be limited in scope to changes made in the 
previous review. _Before starting another review cycle the specification 
must be re-approved as a Committee Draft and then approved to go to 
public review by the TC._

I underlined the part I think applies.

I believe this means that we can go back to Committee Draft status and 
start another 60-Day Review until we are satisfied that we want to 
restrict ourselves to "subsequent" reviews of a Draft. A new cycle such 
as we held for PR2 doesn't, in my interpretation, require us to restrict 
ourselves or the public to the changes from the previous PR draft. We 
only do that when we want to submit a "changes only" draft with the 
changes called out so that comments on the changes can be made. This is 
the typical minimum 15-Day PR, though we could choose a longer period of 
time for the PR.

We can ask Mary about this. That's why I said "my interpretation" and "I 
believe." Been wrong once or twice too often. ;-)

Cheers,
Rex


Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote:
>
> Frank,
>
> There are a number of proposed editorial changes against CD2 that have 
> come in, albeit late in the review process, including a number from 
> our own subcommittee members. While I agree that we can continually 
> improve our product by providing rewrites of existing material, the 
> problem is that our end product (e.g., next CD or PRD or proposed spec 
> or standard) is no longer what the previous revision embodied. In 
> other words, it was my understanding that proposed changes could only 
> be made against the actual revised content of a previous release. In 
> our case, that would mean recommended changes to CD2 would only be 
> accepted against updates made based on comments against CD1.
>
> I’m a little worried that we’re changing the game here late in the 
> game. Does this policy only apply to external reviewers or do we 
> govern it against ourselves as well?
>
> Would like to add this as an agenda item for tomorrow’s SC meeting.
>
> Cheers...
>
> - Jeff
>

-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670