RE: [soa-rm-ra] Need Clarification on Consensus for Items Returned to Document

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

Rex,

The terms you mention were never excised.  See section 3.2.5.1, especially
line 1524.  My latter issues from 9/22 (updated 11/11) ask for this and
similar passages to be deleted.

To your list of terms that were supposed to disappear, please add service
action.

Ken

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:
703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508


-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rex.brooks@ncoic.org] 
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:38 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Need Clarification on Consensus for Items Returned to
Document

Hi Everyone,

As I began my review of Section 3 for consistency wrt purpose, goals, 
objectives and intent as well as right, authority, commitment, 
obligation and permission, which I have not had a chance to do with any 
of the snapshots since 7-28-2010, I thought I would only be checking 
those terms and concepts. That was wrong. Terms and concepts have been 
re-added, so I need to get a read on the consensus for these returns.

I need committee members other than Frank to confirm agreement to the 
re-addition of the following terms and concepts that I thought had been 
removed for good:

"Counts as"
"Illocutionary" (and the apparent adoption of the concepts of Speech Act 
Theory: Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Acts and Force)
"stance" in relation to Assertion and Proposition.

I also now have all sorts of major and minor disagreements and quibbles 
respectively, but I thought these dealbreakers had better be my first 
priority. In my opinion these are inappropriate, terms and concepts that 
I thought had safely been laid to rest.

Before I had to take several weeks off to work on the Emergency Data 
Exchange Language Situation Reporting specification for which I am an 
editor, the main editor in terms of pulling the first complete draft 
together from 16+ months, these terms were absent from the document. We 
were working through all issues except Ken's remaining issues with 
Section 3 and we were still referencing 7-28-2010 as we finished up the 
issues lodged against PR02, even though there were a couple of snapshots 
produced which I did not have time to review then.

So my question is: was there explicit consensus for returning these 
concepts to the document while I was absent? If not, you should all go 
into the document and rediscover that these have returned during the 
reformulation of Section 3. I thought that only a small amount of text 
needed to be added to smooth the flow of the reordering of the sections 
that we did agree on. That's why I felt free to concentrate on other work.

This is important because if these terms and concepts were returned 
without explicit consensus, we need to remove them immediately AND we 
need to revisit the discussion of guillotine dates. I will be road kill 
for eliminating these unless there was EXPLICIT consensus. I won't 
accept implicit consensus.

The reason why I appeared to favor avoiding more discussion over items 
we had adjudicated previously was because I assumed that other than 
reordering, the document was largely the same as the last version I had 
agreed to, the 7-28-2010 version with only minor additions to smooth the 
flow of reordering.

Cheers,
Rex


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

smime.p7s