RE: [ws-tx] Avoiding motions on text drafted during telcons

["Charlton Barreto" <cbarreto@adobe.com>]

:-) No bother, I think it was easy enough to follow along. 

With respect to the topic, I feel this goes beyond a voting member's comfort
level with such a motion. We can easily spend an inordinate amount of time
on such motions since drafting text during a conf call within a large group
such as this is inherently expensive. What has worked well to my experience
has been the use of a process where submitters present concept proposals,
which, once approved, can be developed into the appropriate spec text and
presented in time for TC members to review and discuss at the subsequent
conf call.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:55 AM
To: 'Colleen Evans'; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Avoiding motions on text drafted during telcons

opps replied to wrong mail
jet lag arghhhhhh

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 5:47 PM
>To: 'Colleen Evans'; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [ws-tx] NEW Issue: WS-C: Clarify normative 
>requirements for MU attribute.
>
>
>I have to strongly disagree. If anyone is uncomfortable with a 
>motion they can ask for it to be tabled (US style), vote 
>against etc etc. A blanket ban on such motions is harmful and 
>may come back to bite us in an unmentionable place, as will 
>inventing process where no invention is required. 
>
>In this particular case as well, we did have a concrete 
>proposal and  it didn’t involve pages of text either; 
>it was well manageable for a con call, especially with irc support.
>
>
>Martin.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Colleen Evans [mailto:coevans@microsoft.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:27 PM
>>To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: [ws-tx] NEW Issue: WS-C: Clarify normative 
>>requirements for MU attribute.
>>
>>
>>Issue name -- WS-C: Clarify normative requirements for MU attribute.
>>
>>Target document and draft: WS-C working drafts 1.1
>>
>>Protocol: Coord
>> 
>>Artifact:  spec
>>
>>Draft: 1.1 working drafts of Coord. Lines 179-180.
>>
>>Links to the documents referenced:
>>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15738/WS-Coor
>dination-2005-11-22.pdf
>
>Issue type:  Editorial
>
>Related issues:  None 
>
>Issue Description:
>Lines 179-180 outline a condition where mustUnderstand is required,
>however the current text does not reflect the normative nature of this
>requirement.
>
>Issue Details:
>WS-Coordination lines 179 and 180 state:
>"When a context is exchanged as a SOAP header, the mustUnderstand
>attribute must be present and its value must be true."
>
>The 'must' in this sentence should reflect a normative requirement.
>
>Proposed Resolution:
>Replace the text:
>"When a context is exchanged as a SOAP header, the mustUnderstand
>attribute must be present and its value must be true."
>
>With:
>
>"When a context is exchanged as a SOAP header, the mustUnderstand
>attribute MUST be present and its value MUST be true."
>
>
>

smime.p7s