Re: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - Proposal to vote

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Diane Jordan wrote:

>
> I don't understand the logic that a full review of the text is 
> required for this issue as compared to others.  Many of the issues we 
> have passed did not include full resolution and almost never the text.

mm1: Never is a strong word and, to date, we have had concrete text or 
submission proposals, i.e. several issues have proposals that 
accommodate such rigor.

>  I think the question at hand is whether the TC thinks appendix c is 
> useful without the references to the other specs.  If so, we should 
> ask the editing committee to remove those references (as we asked them 
> to remove them from other portions of the text).  If not, we should 
> vote against this issue and the appendix will be removed as was 
> originally suggested.   

mm1: Regardless if Appendix C stays or not, the references were voted to 
be removed. Given our discussion in yesterday's F2F, are we not asking 
for a concrete proposal that provides more concrete text to support the 
suggested actions? Thanks.