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

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

My apologies if I came over as self-righteous or lecturing.

The message that startled me was, subject "Issue 139" with the content

"If you check out 139
(http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=139) I'd say
that Peter's last paragraph is an editorial change."
 
and it's follow-ups. And the similar thread on 135.

It may be the solutions to 135 and 139 end up as editorial, but I would
have thought it was pretty clear that the issues weren't necessarily
editorial. Suggesting an editorial solution to a potentially significant
issue is not an editorial matter[1]. I accept, that at the boundary,
it's arguable which way things go.

Peter

[1] - my sensitivity may be hyper, partly due to a very early experience
in standards. We (UK) had proposed an editorial - deletion of a sentence
in the scope that said "this standard does not describe xyz", on the
grounds that sections 8 and 9 did. The French comments included a major
- delete sections 8 and 9 - on the grounds that they were contradicted
by the sentence in the scope. For an editor to have "accepted" the
French comment by applying the UK comment would obviously be naughty.
(in fact we reached a compromise)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:Mark.Little@arjuna.com]
> Sent: 30 June 2004 17:59
> To: Furniss, Peter; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-caf] where issues should be discussed
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>