RE: new ballot for approving initiating a CS / CN ballot for our specs

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

[Replying to the list where this needs to be recorded.]

Umm, I don't think approval of the CND of the Test Assertions Guidelines as a CS will go through at all.  It fails to meet the format requirements.  (Well, it has a Conformance Section, but it has no Conformance Clauses, of course.)

That needs to be straightened out at once.  It says Committee Note Draft on the cover of the last one I've seen, and it, dated 27 August 2011 and identified as Committee Note Draft 03 was approved as a CND in the ballot that concluded on September 9.  So the document that was retitled and reviewed as a CSD was never approved as a CSD by us.  How can that possibly go forward as anything at all?

The Public Review announcement not only called it a CSD, it is dated 15 August 2011 and identified it as CSD06. It is not clear that it was even the correct document.  I see that the cover of the document that was submitted to Public Review also had that designation as a CSD.

What happened?  Did I sleep through something important?  Is it required that it be a CSD because earlier versions produced under the old rules (and without the separate model and markup) was a CD?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 13:45
To: Paul Rank; dennis.hamilton@acm.org; kevin.looney@oracle.com; Boland Jr, Frederick E.
Subject: new ballot for approving initiating a CS / CN ballot for our specs

All:

While preparing for submission of our specs to a CS / CN ballot, I realized our last approval motions (Fri 11/4) were not sufficient.

So I just initiated an electronic ballot with proper motion, for you to approve within a week.

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tag/ballot.php?id=2141

Errors in our conf call approval were:

-          We forgot to approve the updating by staff of “cross-references” (see 2.19 in http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process) which allows staff to update our refs  as the status of our specs evolves (e.g. ref from TA markup to TA model, from guidelines to markup etc.)

-          The TA guidelines were actually posted as CS (not CN) by staff. So we keep on this CS track for it.

-          The URLs should have pointed at the “CS Public Review Drafts” as posted by staff (CSPRD)

Sorry for this little delay… but caught before staff complained…

Regards,

Jacques