My apologies - I have been going flat out, and have not written up the
minutes of the meeting - I sent out an e-mail about it, however.
We discussed both objections, as I mentioned in the e-mail, and reached the
conclusion that we would not hold up the standard for either of them.
Did you have a specific question about that objection?
Tony
-----Original Message----- From: CAHUZAC Maud
RD-ILAB-SSF [mailto:maud.cahuzac@rd.francetelecom.com] Sent: Thu
03-Feb-05 6:49 To: Luc Clement; Rogers, Tony;
uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Subject: RE:
[uddi-spec] UDDI Spec advancement
All,
I could not attend
the call on Tuesday and I did not find any comment regarding the negative vote
about ebRIM. Was there any discussion during the call about this topic
?
Thanks.
Regards,
Maud
Maud
CAHUZAC
France Telecom Research
& Development
South San
Francisco
Technical
Analyst
801 Gateway Blvd, Suite
500
South San Francisco, CA
94080
USA
Tel : + 1 650 875
1577
Fax : + 1 650 875
1505
http://www.francetelecom.com/rd/
From: Luc
Clement [mailto:luc.clement@systinet.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 6:20
PM To: 'Rogers, Tony'; 'James
Bryce Clark'; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] UDDI Spec
advancement
Jamie: I trust that
we've addressed everything to your and OASIS's satisfaction and look forward
to the v3 spec ascending to the status of OASIS Standard.
To the TC and all
that have contributed to the effort, Tony and I would like to extend a warm
thank you -- congrats!
Luc
From: Rogers,
Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005
17:08 To: James Bryce Clark;
uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] UDDI Spec
advancement
Yes, we.ve met. We have voted, unanimously, to take
option a.
-----Original Message----- From: James Bryce Clark
[mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org] Sent: Wed 02-Feb-05 7:39 To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Subject: [uddi-spec] UDDI Spec
advancement
UDDI Spec TC:
As you
know, the OASIS member vote to advance UDDI v3.0.2 as an OASIS Standard
received sufficient votes to pass. Congratulations. However,
the TC Process rules require that the TC act to consider its reaction, in
the event that any negative votes are cast. Several negative votes
were cast by members in the ballot closing
yesterday.
I am required to advise you that
the TC must by resolution take one of the three steps listed as
alternatives below. (NOTE: My understanding is that you have
done so, at a meeting this morning, and I will confirm this by a posting
back to this list later today.)
The
applicable rule states
(from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standard):
If
at the end of the voting period at least 15 percent of the
voting membership has voted to approve the proposed standard, * * * if
negative votes amounting to less than 15 percent of the voting membership
have been cast, the TC will be notified of the negative votes, after
which the TC shall have 30 days to take one of the following actions by
resolution: (a) request OASIS TC Administration to approve the
specification as submitted despite the negative votes; (b) withdraw the
submission entirely; or (c) submit an amended specification, in which
case the amended submission shall be considered as if it were a new
submission, except that information regarding previous votes and any
disposition of comments received in previous votes shall accompany the
amended submission.
I will take steps to
confirm the results of your TC's action this morning and then expect to
have further announcements shortly.
Best
regards Jamie Clark
~ James Bryce
Clark ~ Director, Standards Development,
OASIS ~ +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office
To
unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php.
|