tag message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: time for voting a committee draft
- From: "Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
- To: <tag@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:42:04 -0700
All:
I believe it is time
to vote a Committee Draft.
"The TC may at any stage during
development of a specification approve the specification as a Committee Draft.
The approval of a Committee Draft shall require a Full Majority Vote of the TC.
The TC may approve a specification, revise it, and re-approve it any number of
times as a Committee Draft."
Does not need to be
in a final shape. But mature and stable enough to refer to it
publicly.
The advantage in
doing this, we give some visibility to our latest draft, and some standing in
the TC after beeing voted CD.
That is increasingly
necessary if we want to be able to refer to it in other works or
groups.
I am myself in
the situation where I am using TAG design for another work and need now to
reference TAG document in this other work. Otherwise there might be confusion
who is using whose work...
Full majority means
50%+ of all voting members. If we have this qorum at next meeting (Wed 29) I'd
submit the draft for vote, although I'd do that only after getting feedback from
the K-TAG forum.
Otherwise we can
start a 1-week electronic ballot.
So for this CD vote,
we should make sure to have a CD-candidate version of the draft by end of next
week.
Stephen: this means
that only the following changes need be made: (a) purely editorial ones, at your
discretion, (b) technical changes that the TC has already agreed on, or we have
clearly a consensus on.
By posting the
candidate CD latest by Friday 24, we give a chance to the TC to catch any
glaring flaw by Monday, where we would expect our editor (you) to post a
corrected version by Tuesday just before Wed meeting...
This CD may contain
the figures we have been talking about, if anyone has time to craft these.
The next step is the
really important one: Committee Specification, which would require some public
review prior to vote.
Thanks,
Jacques
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]