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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

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

Subject: [wsrp] Ballot results and next steps

The results of the ballot about whether to focus on submitting WSRP for consideration as an OASIS std by July 15 passed with a vote tally of:
  14 - YES
    8 - NO
    1 - ABSTAIN

In reflecting on the discussion surrounding this ballot, I think that we as a TC are saying that we have made a significant effort to align concepts (and in some cases data values) and test interoperability between WSRP and JSR 168, but that the schedule for WSRP should not be constrained by that adopted for JSR 168. I think both of these are appropriate as they demonstrate that we desire to liaison with other relevant standards efforts, but as a web service standard are not tied to any one particular platform. This also goes along with the efforts by both the WSDL and Interoperability subcommittees to include non-Java platforms, in particular .NET, in the ongoing testing.

The steps needed to submit WSRP to OASIS by July 15 include re-approval of the updated spec as a Committee Specification (requires a 2/3 vote) and a TC vote to submit the Committee Specification (simple majority required). Considering other recent comments to me, discussed next, I will plan to open two ballots for these two questions.

I was recently approached with the comment that the application of our errata to the specification should kick off another 30-day public review cycle of the modified specification. I have carefully read the TC process document and asked  OASIS TC Administrators when such a second review cycle is required. Their response(s) agreed with my reading that additional public review cycles are to be initiated whenever one or more of the following is true:
  - The TC votes to start an additional review cycle
  - Substantive changes are made to the specification
  - Changes are made outside of comments received on the specification (regardless of the comment's source)

I would assert that all the recently applied changes were as a result of comments received. We, as the TC, need to decide whether or not any of the changes rises to the level of a substantive change to the spec. As a result of this, I will phrase the second ballot such that its options are either submitting to OASIS or starting a second public review cycle.

Personally, I think that the only change that could rise to this level is errata item #27, dealing with namespacing. As I stepped back to consider this change, it was clear that there was no change in the concepts of the specification, but that there was a syntax change which responded to a comment about the previous syntax obscuring the underlying token. As such, I do not think it rises to the substantive change level.

Rich Thompson

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