RE: [ws-caf] where issues should be discussed

[Mark Little <Mark.Little@arjuna.com>]

Peter, which issues do you think fall into this category? I think you are 
being selective with the information you give, because a casual browse of the 
list shows time and again where the editors make statements about how an issue 
should be discussed in the main mailing list.

I don't think these sorts of lessons from yourself are appropriate or 
necessary. We know what is right and wrong and occassional slip ups are just 
that: slip ups.

Mark.

>===== Original Message From "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> 
=====
>I've just taken one of my occasional strolls through the ws-caf-editors
>list archive (http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-caf-editors/)
>and discovered that there has been some semi-private discussion there on
>some of the open issues. This doesn't seem to be right - once an issue
>has been agreed , it belongs to the editors, as does discussion about
>who is applying which edits, but discussion on open issues should be on
>the main list where everyone sees it when its fresh and can respond..
>
>Of course, one can't prevent private conversations among groups but this
>spec belongs to the TC, not the editors.
>
>If it is felt that the issues discussion is too detailed for the main
>list, the TC could set up a sublist (as we did for BTP, where bt-spec
>did detail stuff, while the main list discussed major things, like what
>the conf call numbers were).
>
>Peter
>
>------------------------------------------
>Peter Furniss
>Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
>web: http://www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/>
>email: peter.furniss@choreology.com
>phone: +44 870 739 0066
>mobile: +44 7951 536168