Review scheduling (was: Re: UBL TC Plenary Minutes...)

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au:]

| so the real question the TC should be asking is "When we look at
| the schemas for the second public review are they so different
| from the first public review schemas that 15 days is not adequate
| for public comments on the changes?"

Right.

A two-week public review (the minimum mandated by the OASIS TC
process) is already part of our schedule.  The rules say that the
only points open for comment at that stage are the things that
changed between the first public review and the second public
review.  Whether we want to go beyond that and lengthen the second
public review or hold further public reviews is up to us.

| and if we made it 21 days or 90 days would we get a different
| answer?

Experience teaches that we probably would not.  The most relevant
comments come at the beginning of the review and right after the
time for review has closed -- pretty much regardless of the length
of the review period.  Whether for political reasons it would be
better to hold a longer review or to hold additional reviews is a
different question and one that we should consider in our TC calls
the week of 5 June.

Jon