[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
I submitted a comment several days ago. If the archive isn't there then there is an infrastructure problem. Can TC members subscribe to this list? -----Original Message----- From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:01 PM To: 'Patil, Sanjay'; Marc Goodner; '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 Sanjay, Just an FYI regarding the comment archives. The comment link isn't broken; the archive page isn't actually created until the first comment is submitted. Regards, Mary > -----Original Message----- > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 6:48 PM > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; Marc Goodner; 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 > > > 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.] > > > > >>> > > > > >>>* * * > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]