RE: [docbook-tc] Review of The Definitive Guide for 5.0

Hi Norm,

  Sorry for the delayed response - it looks like we still need to do the actual
Public Review -- according to your blog post on 7 Nov. DocBook 5.0 was approved
as a Committee Draft but now I need the actual spec and DTDs, schemas, etc. so
we can get over the PR hurdle. Once that's complete, we can move forward to
Committee Specification.

Thanks!

Mary




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:56 PM
> To: Mary McRae
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] Review of The Definitive Guide for 5.0
> 
> Hi Mary,
> 
> Did you get this message that I sent last week?
> 
> / Norman Walsh <> was heard to say:
> | / "Mary McRae" <> was heard to say:
> | | Hi Norm,
> | |
> | |   Here's the process:
> | |
> | | 1. I need to set up two special majority ballots for the TC to:
> | | a) approve 5.0 as a Committee Specification, and
> |
> | Please setup that ballot.
> |
> | | For a) to happen, I need the an updated copy of 5.0 to point to in the
> ballot.
> | | That means the prose component, including conformance statements (in
> original
> | | source, XHTML, and PDF), as well as the actual DTD/schema/grammar
> files.
> |
> | That's the Public Review Draft, per the process, right?
> |
> | | For b) to happen, I need at least three statements of use from
> organizational
> | | members
> | |
> | | The two ballots can run simultaneously; if you do not yet have the
> statements of
> | | use I can start a) and then start b) when you're ready.
> |
> | Let's get a) started right away. It's going to pass, and b) will
> | follow on almost immediately, but I don't have three statements from
> | organizational members at hand today.
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> --
> Norman Walsh <>      | Everything should be made as
> http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | simple as possible, but no simpler.
> Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |