RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

     Please keep my colleague Mary McRae in the loop on this feedback, as 
she is in charge of the templates and (when a spec reaches a higher level 
of approval) compliance with them.  Copying her here.  I will share my take 
on these issues with her, and ask her to work them out with the 
committee.  Regards JBC

At 12:13 PM 10/28/2005, Marc Goodner wrote:
>Ive looked into this further and have also determined that the boilerplate 
>is exceptionally dated. The instructions there are from 2002/3 so can not 
>possibly reflect current realities at OASIS since the updated process 
>policy and IPR changes. As a very relevant example, the text and link 
>regarding comments should only apply to a Public Review Draft according to 
>the OASIS process, not any CD. The boilerplate is in error and should be 
>corrected.
>In the end I believe the TC should follow the intent of the OASIS Process, 
>instead of incorrect and outdated boilerplate material, and remove these links
>
>>From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
>>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:57 AM
>>To: Marc Goodner; Paul Fremantle; James Bryce Clark
>>Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
>>
>>+1
>>We should adapt the boiler plate to reflects our realities.
>>Thanks,
>>Sanjay
>>
>>>From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
>>>Sent: Thursday, Oct 27, 2005 22:13 PM
>>>To: Paul Fremantle; Patil, Sanjay; James Bryce Clark
>>>Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
>>>Importance: High
>>>
>>>The boilerplate being used for the cover page of this CD is wrong. There 
>>>is information there that is inaccurate and in my opinion misleading. It 
>>>should not be applied on the grounds that it is in the OASIS 
>>>templates/samples and in other TC CDs.
>>>The primary problem is the public review link. The TC did not approve 
>>>this CD for public review. That link simply should not be in this CD.
>>>I specifically asked if this was a public review and was repeatedly told 
>>>no. It has been emphasized on our calls that this was not going to be up 
>>>for public review. Insisting on this link because it is part of the 
>>>boilerplate seems wrong to me. I dont think any editorial comment about 
>>>that link not being monitored or the TC not accepting public comment at 
>>>this time could be strong enough. Why would you give someone the link if 
>>>they are not supposed to use it? It certainly implies that the TC will 
>>>be taking comments on this CD at some point in time which is contrary to 
>>>the direction we were given.
>>>Furthermore the comment form does not seem like it should be there if 
>>>the TC has not released a CD for public review yet. Currently the form 
>>>seems to be active but the links to the archive itself do not function. 
>>>Who even monitors mail sent to this alias?
>>>I am less concerned about the errata link. Again though, I just dont 
>>>understand why we would put boilerplate text with a link to a document 
>>>we never intend to produce in a CD.
>>>Look, boilerplate is boilerplate. Why are we insisting on inserting 
>>>information into our first CD that is wrong because it is part of a 
>>>template. If it doesnt apply it doesnt apply. Strike it.
>>>
>>>Wsrm:
>>>Remove this text from lines 36 38:
>>>Others should use the comment form at http://www.oasisopen.
>>>org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=ws-rx. [ed. note - Comments 
>>>are not being accepted at this time.]
>>>
>>>Remove lines 43 45
>>>If necessary, the errata page for this version of of the specification 
>>>will be located at
>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-rx/documents/errata/1.1/index.html. 
>>>[ed. note
>>>There is no errata at this time.]
>>>
>>>* * *