OK, thanks for the suggestions, David. I'll bring these up with the Board.
-Karl
David RR Webber wrote:
> 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.
>
>
--
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
Vice President, OASIS
office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648
http://www.oasis-open.org
