Re: [wss] OASIS submission ballot invalid? Re: [wss] WSS TC ballots - second reminder

[Kelvin Lawrence <klawrenc@us.ibm.com>]

Jeff, before the votes were setup, over
the past several meetings, there have been many discussions at the TC meetings
as to whether or not the TC members felt that there needed to be a second
interop. After discussion in the TC it was not felt necessary as the changes
were not substantive and the TC remained comfortable that the work done
to date was sufficient. All of these discussions can be found in the WSS
TC minutes archive at [1] .  Furthermore, no one is on record prior
to now as having asked for another review phase either. This change that
is being cited has been in the spec since Dec 16th. So far other than a
couple of general comments, no one has cited concrete examples of substantive
changes. 

We also discussed at length the creation
of these votes and how they would work. We even delayed voting a week to
give folks more time to prepare. Also, the  change that has been raised
as "reason for another public review"  was made to the document,
as I mentioned, on 12/16/2003 (over a month ago) - and only now is this
objection being raised - during the last business day before the vote closes.

 It is my firm belief that the
changes made are not substantial enough to require a full second review
cycle. As co-chair if I felt otherwise I would not myself be supporting
this work moving forward at this time. As I said  no member has asked
for a second public review until now. As I have said on the record many
times, I recognize the need to both deliver this spec to the industry in
a timely manner but also not at the expense of quality. I personally believe
we have reached the point now where it is right to proceed. But again this
is for the TC and not me to decide and hence we have the current votes
underway.

As to the votes being out of order,
not at all, they are totally in line with the OASIS process of a committee
draft vote followed by vote of all voting to advance the work. The creation
of the votes was approved by a unanimous vote of the TC members at our
last meeting and no one raised objection.  As to the work progressing,
this is for the TC to decide by vote under the rules laid out in the process
document at [2]. We will have to see how the vote comes out and what the
wish of the TC is and then the TC will discuss and at the upcoming meeting.

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/minutes.php
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standard

Cheers
Kelvin
WSS TC co-Chair



Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
wrote on 01/22/2004 11:11:59 PM:

> Hi,
>    Not to be a procedural wonk, but doesn't this mean that
the second 
> ballot is "out of order" and "invalid"? Assuming
the first ballot passes, 
> then there needs to be another public review, and no substantive changes
as 
> a result of that review, before that document can be proposed as an
OASIS 
> standard?
>     cheers,
>      jeff
> 
> At 08:40 PM 1/22/2004, Ron Monzillo wrote:
> >Jerry,
> >
> >I share your opinion that substantive changes were made to the
spec,
> >and that we should conduct another review cycle.
> >
> >Therefore, I have also voted NO on the ballot "Submit to
OASIS for final 
> >approval ?".
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >Jerry Schwarz wrote:
> >
> >>At 02:06 PM 1/21/2004, Kelvin Lawrence wrote:
> >>
> >>>Apparently the system failed to send the automatic reminder
it was 
> >>>supposed to send today so I am sending another reminder
to you all to 
> >>>vote in the currently open ballots.
> >>>
> >>>We are now more than half-way through the work week and
a great many of 
> >>>us have yet to vote - please do vote soon so we can begin
collating the 
> >>>results prior to our TC call next week. Many thanks!
> >>>
> >>>I will send a final reminder later in the week.
> >>>
> >>>Cheers
> >>>Kelvin
> >>
> >>
> >>FYI. I have just voted yes on making this a CD, but no on
submitting for 
> >>final with the comment attached below.
> >>
> >>-----------------
> >>Oracle believes that there have been too many changes to the
documents to 
> >>advance it to final status another public review period.
> >>
> >>According to the OASIS Procedures. " If substantive changes
are made to 
> >>the specification after the start of the public review then
the TC should 
> >>conduct another review cycle".
> >>
> >>I will cite as one instance of a substantive change the change
from QName 
> >>to URI for the valuetype attributes.
> >>
> >>------------------------
> >>
> >>Rereading the comment I see a missing "without"
and a typo. The first 
> >>sentence should read
> >>
> >>"Oracle believes that there have been too many changes
to the documents 
> >>to advance them to final status without another public review
period."
> >>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
the roster of 
> >>the OASIS TC), go to 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.
> org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
roster of 
> >the OASIS TC), go to 
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> 
> Jeff Mischkinsky              
       jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
> Consulting Member Technical Staff     +1(650)506-1975
> Director, Web Services Standards      500 Oracle Parkway
M/S 4OP9
> Oracle Corporation              
     Redwood Shores, CA 94065
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
> roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.
> org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>