There is no such option provided in the TC Process. This
new version, while based on an existing standard, has not yet been approved as
a Committee Specification and must follow the requirement for an initial 60-day
Alternatively, if the changes are non-substantive the TC
could instead issue another errata, although it will need to wait for 6 months
since the last errata was approved (July 2008).
As far as the history of the TC Process and why our rules
are the way they are, I would suggest having that conversation with a member of
the Board of Directors who serves on the Board Process Committee. It’s my
understanding that the initial review was extended from 30 days to 60 days (and
making subsequent reviews a minimum of 15 days) to be more in line with other
standards organizations, to give reviewers adequate time to thoroughly review
the specification, as well as to address some IPR concerns.
That said, you should feel free to take any requests for
changes to any OASIS Policy to the Board of Directors (http://www.oasis-open.org/who/bod.php).
We truly appreciate hearing from members. We all want to make OASIS the best
organization it can be and any suggestions for improvements are always welcome.
If you feel my reading of the TC Process is in error, you
are also free to appeal any decision to the Board as noted in Section 3.4 of
the TC Process. (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-02-05.php#appeals)
From: Patil, Sanjay
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:31 PM
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] RE: Public Review of WSRM specifications
This would be a full 60-day review. Once you’ve topped out at
OS/approved errata you go back to the beginning of the process for the next
While this requirement of 60-day review may no be a
practical issue for the WS-RX TC, I would really like to understand the
rationale behind this rule. In general, I would have assumed that the
duration of the review period be based upon - a> the assumed familiarity of
the readers with the contents of the previous versions, and b> nature of the
changes introduced in the current version.
I think readers should be quite familiar with the previous version
(v1.1) since there have already been multiple public reviews of the
previous version. Secondly, the current version (v1.2-cd01) do not include
substantive changes as such (risking being judgmental here, I know). So I think a
15-day (as opposed to 60-day) public review period would have made a lot of
sense in our case.
Perhaps it should be left to the individual TCs to choose the
duration (15-day vs. 60-day) for the public review period for a draft that has
a predecessor version which has already been subject to public
From: Mary McRae [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
Behalf Of Mary McRae
Sent: Friday, Feb 29, 2008 7:01 AM
To: Patil, Sanjay
Subject: RE: Public Review of WSRM specifications
Thanks for the heads up – I most likely won’t
have a chance to take a look at the files before the middle of the week but
will do my best.
This would be a full 60-day review. Once you’ve
topped out at OS/approved errata you go back to the beginning of the process
for the next release.
From: Patil, Sanjay
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:54 PM
Subject: Public Review of WSRM specifications
This is to
give you a heads up that the WS-RX TC voted with Full Majority on 2/28
conf-call to submit our latest CDs for Public Review. The editors are
preparing the final package for submission. Meanwhile, if you could also verify
the latest package  for any potential issues, that will be great.
I also have
one question for you -- How long would this PR cycle be, given that these
latest CD drafts are a result of the progression of the last OS version (i.e.
the latest CD drafts = OS draft + approved errata + some issue resolutions)?
The version numbers of latest CD drafts are different than that of their last
OS versions, but there are no changes to the namespace defined by these