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

[Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

  I had sent previous communications to Marc and Jamie; my apologies for not copying the group. 

  First, let me apologize for any confusion TC editors had in locating the current templates. They are found at
docs.oasis-open.org/templates and exist in 3 flavors: Microsoft Office Word, OpenOfficeOrg Writer, and XHTML. 

  Beyond that, let me also say up front that TC Administration does not officially get involved in reviewing specifications until
they are submitted for public review. At that time the documents are checked to make sure that they are in accordance with the
current TC Process policy. These documents are not yet at that stage; therefore my only concern at this point is to make sure that
the editors are aware of the proper location of the templates and to address any questions or misunderstandings regarding their use.


The templates at the above location are those created in conjunction with the OASIS Technical Advisory Board late last summer
(2004). They were submitted to the chairs list for review and input was incorporated before final publication. After some
conversations the past couple of weeks regarding the official notices text, we determined that it would be best to have unique
templates based on the particular IPR Policy the under which a TC was working. I created two versions for each template: one with
the legacy IPR Policy notice text, and another with the 4-15-05 IPR Policy notice text. 

Regarding the mention of the public comment list: this list is always available on each TC's public home page; the public is always
welcome to provide input or ask questions. Any comments received during a public review must be accounted for. They must be logged
in some form and their disposition recorded. Comments received during any other time do not have this burden, although most TCs do
respond to such comments. I believe that the TC chair(s) are automatically subscribed to the comment list but will verify that with
our IT dept. The link is there merely to provide easy access should a reader wish to provide input or ask questions, remembering
that all TC documents are always publicly viewable. If you feel that the current wording could be improved upon, please send any
suggestions to me and I will forward to the TAB Quality subcommittee for consideration.

Regarding the mention of errata: typically when a document is published it is intended to be 100% accurate, without error or
omission. Reality is that sometimes errata must be created. The mention of the location of the errata is not to imply that errata
exist; only to let the reader know where they can find any errata that might be created in the future. Again, if you feel that the
current wording courld be improved upon, please send any suggestions to me and I will forward to the TAB Quality subcommittee for
consideration.

  Again, my apologize for the confusion, and will work with IT to try to make the pages more visible. We're also working on getting
the TC guidelines rewritten; when we updated the TC Process Policy earlier this year the existing information became obsolete. And
once again, please note that it typically isn't until the TC requests a public review that TC Admin gets involved in actually
reviewing the documents, unless requested to do so by the TC.

Regards,

Mary

---------------------------------------------------
Mary P McRae
OASIS 
Manager of TC Administration
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org  
web: www.oasis-open.org 
phone: 603.232.9090
cell: 603.557.7985

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:48 PM
> To: Patil, Sanjay; James Bryce Clark; paul@wso2.com
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
> 
> I'm happy with that. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:06 PM
> To: James Bryce Clark; Marc Goodner; paul@wso2.com
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
> 
> 
> I think we have to nail down the issue of status text rather quickly
> before the links for CD I are published.
> 
> How about removing the text that refers to the public comments mailing
> list, web form, errata page, etc. I don't see very many 
> issues with the
> rest of the status text. Here is the cut-paste of the edited text for
> your quick reference. Please chime in and raise your opinion 
> if you are
> ok with this text. If there are no concerns, I propose to include this
> in the CD I revs.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> -----------------------------------
> This document was last revised or approved by the OASIS WS-RX 
> TC on the
> above date. The level of approval is also listed above. Check the
> current location noted above for possible later revisions of this
> document.
> 
> For information on whether any patents have been disclosed that may be
> essential to implementing this specification, and any offers of patent
> licensing terms, please refer to the Intellectual Property Rights
> section of the Technical Committee web page
> (www.oasis-open.org/committees/[TC short name] /ipr.php.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks,
> Sanjay 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, Oct 25, 2005 16:51 PM
> > To: mgoodner@microsoft.com; Patil, Sanjay; paul@wso2.com
> > Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
> > 
> >      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.]
> > >>>
> > >>>* * *
> > 
> >