OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-sbsc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl] Groups - Mid-review preview in advance of UBL 1.0 SBS committee specification (UBL-1-0-SBS-cs_preview.zip) uploaded


| Noting that this package could later be proposed as the basis for
| a further, second committee draft of the UBL 1.0 SBS following the
| initial public review:-
| Would it then need a further fifteen day public review (along with
| any other changes that have been made in response to comments from
| the initial review) before it could become a committee
| specification?

The TC process says:

| The TC may conduct any number of review cycles (i.e. approval
| to send a Committee Draft to Public Review, collecting
| comments, making edits to the specification, etc.). The first
| public review of a specification must take place for a minimum
| of 60 days, and any subsequent reviews must be held for a
| minimum of 15 days. Changes made to a specification after a
| review must be clearly identified in any subsequent review, and
| the subsequent review shall be limited in scope to changes made
| in the previous review. Before starting another review cycle
| the specification must be re-approved as a Committee Draft and
| then approved to go to public review by the TC.
| If Substantive Changes are made to the specification after the
| public review, whether as a result of public review comments or
| from Member input, then the TC must conduct another review
| cycle. The specification may not be considered for approval by
| the TC as a Committee Specification until it has undergone a
| review cycle during which it has received no comments that
| result in Substantive Changes to the specification.

So it appears that we don't need a second public review unless we
make substantive changes after the first one.  But we've already
done that, so the answer is Yes, there will need to be another
(shorter) public review after the current 60-day review has


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]