Karl,
Ok - that clarifies the document stuff - but
maybe we should have an alternate name for
those who are intending to move theirs forward,
afterall - I suspect this is the majority.
I see how Committee Draft works as the staging
point. Then maybe after the 30 days review and
update - this should be a Committee Reviewed Draft?
Some fine tuning would help.
On the voting front - having the ability to vote
either to approve the specification, or to approve it
and submit to OASIS membership - as single steps -
pick the one you want to do - would certainly
help with vote logistics.
On the verification statements - a suggestion would
be - 3 member companies / and / or - open source
implementation with certification from a fielded
project and results.
With the later - some discretion I think should apply,
so OASIS could ask for additional validations / or
details (white papers are good) and delay the
process accordingly - if it felt there was
not ample enough on the first pass to provide an
equivalent level of adoption. I feel this needs to
have the right balance - so that abuse can be
prevented - while not stifling emerging technology
and making it still-born.
I definately appreciate your endeavours to improve
this all for us.
Thanks, DW.
