RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Comments on NDR position papers

["Gregory, Arofan" <arofan.gregory@commerceone.com>]

Eve:

Is discussing this in e-mail OK? (If not, please disregard the rest of
this...)

I would say that doing formal dispositions for position papers is not
necessary - they're only position papers! Let the comments be included in
the discussion of the position, and dealt with informally as the position
papoers are migrated into the spec.

Once we release a draft spec, I would say it was appropriate to have formal
dispositions. The problem with comments is that often many of these are
non-substantive copy-editing things, and to have to track these while
arguing a position is simply too much overhead. We are going to completely
re-write the position papers when they become part of the spec, so why
bother? 

Easier just to consider the substantive ones informally.

Cheers,

Arofan

-----Original Message-----
From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 7:13 AM
To: ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Comments on NDR position papers


Just in case some of you are not on the ubl-comment list (you really 
should be!), please check out the comments on NDR position papers here:

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200204/msg00018.html

We will need to discuss how to provide better guidance in our next 
deliverable on how to send us comments, and we also need to discuss how 
to field the comments received so far.  (E.g., should we do formal 
Dispositions of Comments, or what?)

	Eve
-- 
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>