Dale,
Marty, All,
I am
happy to go with the flow, but from what I read of Lisa's mail, it seemed to
indicate that the comments could not force changes to the reviewed spec.
3. The timeline of number 2 gives us a
nice cushion to get a lot public comments before it goes out for membership
review. According to Karl, the specification that is sent out for review
is the specification that is balloted with no changes allowed in
between.
So, I don't see how that could have a
resource impact.
Now I do
wonder if by having
the spec as an OASIS standard, it makes a difference to implementers. Like
are the IP rules for use of the ebXML standard the same as the rules
of use for an OASIS standard? If by moving it to an approved OASIS
standard it buys the users something, then I would think that would be
useful.
Also, I am a little concerned that if we wait for v2.0,
the delay in having a standard could be a problem for the end users.
Thinking about the timeline, we are what 16 months from the end of the CPP/A
v2.0 TC? So that would roughly put it in January of 2003, it then goes
to OASIS membership by Feb 2003, they have 30 days to comment, then the
balloting is April 2003. Are the end users willing to wait? Are we
opening up a window for other standards bodies to release things that compete in
the interim? Would having a v1.1 provide at least a marketing opportunity
to try to maintain momentum?
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Carnahan
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:47
PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: OASIS schedule
update
Hello All,
I spoke with Karl Best this morning
regarding the schedule for submitting specs for an OASIS Membership vote.
What I said yesterday was wrong regarding making a submission at the end of
September.
The Process is as follows: (excerpted from
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml . See the link for the
complete text)
Section 2. Standards Process
...Upon resolution of
the TC to move the specification forward, its chair shall submit the following
items to OASIS:
(a) a formal specification that is a valid member of its
type;
(b) appropriate documentation for the specification;
(c) a clear
English-language summary of the specification;
(d) certification by at least
three OASIS member organizations that they are successfully using the
specification;
(e) an account of or pointer to votes and comments received
in any earlier attempts to standardize substantially the same specification,
together with the originating TC's response to each comment;
f) a pointer to
the publicly visible comments archive for the originating TC; and
(g) a
statement from the chair of the TC certifying that all members of the TC have
been provided with a copy of the OASIS IPR policy.
Thirty days shall be
allowed for administrative processing of a proposed standard.
The proposal
shall be submitted to the OASIS membership for review at the beginning of the
first calendar quarter following the 30 days allocated for administrative
review.
At the beginning of the next calendar quarter, the
proposal shall be submitted to the voting members of OASIS, who shall have
thirty days to return a ballot approving or disapproving the proposal.
.....
What does this mean to us?
1. Since we won't have
something ready to submit to Karl by September1 (thirty days before October 1),
we won't have a spec ready for membership review October 1.
2. Our next OASIS
deadline is December 1. If we submit a spec to Karl by December 1, then he
will send it out for review January 1. The ballot for OASIS Membership
vote will then take place April 1.
3. The timeline of number 2 gives
us a nice cushion to get a lot public comments before it goes out for membership
review. According to Karl, the specification that is sent out for review
is the specification that is balloted with no changes allowed in
between.
(Karl: please correct me if I'm
wrong)
--lisa
