OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel-spec-edit message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update


Works for me..

Satish Thatte wrote:
Message

I suggest the following order.  Prasad fixes 101 and 117.  Then Kevin fixes 33.  Then I fix 25 and 53.  How does that sound?

 


From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 1:53 PM
To: 'Prasad Yendluri'; Satish Thatte
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update

 

Hi Prasad,

 

I don't have CVS access from office, so I will not be able to work on it till tonight.

 

33 is pretty simple. If you feel my message to the list has made my concern clear, please go ahead and do it. Otherwise, I can work on it tonight or tomorrow.

Best Regards,
Kevin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 01:33 PM
To: Satish Thatte; Liu, Kevin
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update

Kevin et. al,

I have no issue with you taking 33. Do you want to go first?

Thanks, Prasad

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:

RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update

Date:

Wed, 5 May 2004 13:22:49 -0700

From:

Satish Thatte <satisht@microsoft.com>

To:

Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>, Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>

CC:

bpel spec <wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org>




During the TC call you had some concerns about the wording of the resolution of 33 so I would encourage you to work with Prasad on it regardless of whether Prasad wants your help :-)


From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 1:19 PM
To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update

good, all issues are taken care of and nothing left for me:).

Prasad, if you think you have too much in your plate, I may help with 33.

Best Regards,
Kevin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 09:26 AM
To: Prasad Yendluri
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update
Importance: High

OK so Prasad wants to take 33, 101 and 117.  I will take 25 and 53.  Prasad can go first.

It turns out that I have to run for a last minute fire fighting exercise, so I have to cancel out of the meeting today.  My deepest apologies for the lack of notice!


From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:58 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update

Works for me..

Satish Thatte wrote:

There is also the resolution of 53 which involves removing Appendix C
and all refs to transaction protocols in the spec.  I will take that one
as well as 25.  You go first.
 
That should keep this really short!
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:34 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update
 
Satish,
 
To keep the con call short ;) I can take 33 and 101 and if needed 107. 
Perhaps Yaron should pick 25?
 
Regards, Prasad
 
Satish Thatte wrote:
  
Dear Editors,
 
25, 33, 101 and 117 have been resolved with recommended changes and
 need to be incorporated.Peter's list says 11 was also resolved during
the last call but I don't recall discussing it!
  
Let us talk tomorrow.
 
Satish

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]