Issues/comments disposition

[Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com>]

Hi,

As per the discussion in today's meeting, I went back to check
the disposition of the .70 comments and came across a few things
to consider.  First, I had a ss of 'unreviewed comments'.  There
are not many, but some of them are of interest to the ISC now,
since they detail some of the questions raised then by Sun as it
was going through their implementation.  I recall at the time, Bill,
you said the Sun person wasn't expecting a response and that you'd
been in touch, so those didn't get additional responses.  I will
forward this on to ISC, though, since it would be useful to review
there based on what we've seen so far in other implementations.
The only others in this ss are from members of ttsc/clsc and are
part of the ongoing discussion in with the submitters participating.

Now comes the list of comments that went to ndr.  I've attached
that ss because some of them have dispositions of 'look at for 1.0',
so I thought we may want to revivew.  Most of these submitters
were tc/sc participants so I didn't give them a formal response,
especially since many of the items were evolving discussions that had
not come to resolution, and they were participating in the discussions.
For the others, though they did get responses - the liaison comments
received responses usually through the meetings discussionn, but
otherwise , as with hl7, when they didn't attend, via email.

The only ones on this list that I'm not sure of were non-liaison submitters,
such as gefeg (:)) and Anders Rundgren's comment which, was tied to David
Burdett's comment.  I did respond to David - it was more of a discussion
and getting him involved, but Anders was dropped somewhere along the way.
So that's two we didn't get.

Regarding the EEG1 submission, I did find that we had for some reason
separated those out in to a different spreadsheet file during the F2F.
I don't recall why, but I think at that point I probably lost track of
it and focused on the ndr and main comments ss.  And since EEG1 was not
a liaison organization, that may have been peripheral to our other
discussions (although it houldn't have been).  I don't see any evidence
that I sent them a response or that we got further on the disposition
of their items than is shown in the attached ss.  This is the ss that
I found with the final version of comments from them with disposition
status.  Several of the AIs were for Mike.  Perhaps Stephen you can
review this and see if anything is still valid?

I hate to drag these things up again, but in looking at the overall
comments ss I see that there are quite a few items we deferred,
and I'm wondering if it would be good to take a quick look though
to make sure we haven't missed anything that came up then that we
though we should address.  We really haven't looked at these since
London and although we said 'let's do this later', we never tracked
(to my knowledge) whether or not we did.  So, I've attached the very
last version I have of that comments ss (op70_issues_20030612.doc).

Thanks,

-Anne

0p70_issues_ndr_20030625.sxc

EEG1disposition5-2.doc

0p70_issues_20030612.doc