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

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

Although some early feedback from public on the CD may not hurt, it
would mean that we have to ensure that the web form and the mailing list
are working correctly. I had quickly tried the link for pubilc comments
on the TC public page
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx-comment/) and this link is
currently broken. So either we can try to address these infrastructural
issues now or address them when we really have to (during Committee
Specification phase). I prefer the later. We have enough things to worry
about for now :)

About the link to errata, what we have recently voted on is an interim
CD and any errata related to that would take the form of either an
editor AI or a specific TC issue. We don't want to introduce another way
of tracking the specification changes at this point of time.

So in essence, although I agree with the spirit of leaving the template
text unchanged, I think it introduces more variables for us now than
what we want to. So I suggest that we use the adapted text for now.

Thanks,
Sanjay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, Nov 01, 2005 15:20 PM
> To: 'Marc Goodner'; Patil, Sanjay; 'James Bryce Clark'; paul@wso2.com
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
> 
> 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.]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>* * *
> > > 
> > > 
> 
>