Re: [ebxml-msg] RE: A Request on the Author's list in ebMS 1.1

From
System
Date
2002-01-07T09:55:00+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [ebxml-msg] RE: A Request on the Author's list in ebMS 1.1
+1 to Ralphs comments and suggestions.

Cheers,

Chris

Ralph Berwanger wrote:
> David,
> 	I agree that the list will be very long, especially if you
> attempt to adopt a method that uses Marty's comments regarding all who
> participated via eMail or conference call.  I do not have a good answer.
> I will not lose any sleep if my name does not appear in the document. I
> will tell you that I am sure that if a list of contributors is included
> and someone is omitted from the list, there will be some who are
> disappointed.
> 	I think that you will remember that I wanted to place the list
> of contributors into an appendix of the V 1.0 document or at the very
> end.  I lost that debate and we were challenged to develop an inclusive
> list.  The problem is now magnified.  	I was going to suggest that we
> point to the OASIS web site that lists the membership of the TC as the
> contributor source.  I went to the OASIS web site and determined that
> the TC membership is presented there.  The problem is that we may have
> contributors to the document who currently are not members of the TC or
> a current member may withdraw from the group but still have contributed
> to the document.  So let me make the following proposal, if we call the
> document version 2.0, I suggest that the contributor list consist of
> only those who contributed to the creation of the V 2.0 document.  We
> started with the V1.0 document and the V 1.0 document contains its own
> list of contributors. I will point out that we used the SOAP 1.1 spec in
> the development of the TRP 1.0 spec but did not list those who had
> contributed to the SOAP Spec--that of course would be ludicrous.  I know
> that Dick Brooks and others made key contributions to the V 1.0
> document.  I do not discount the importance of their work.  However,
> this is V 2.0 and we are citing the fact that the specification is
> building on the V 1.0 work so direct references to the V1.0 document do
> not seem necessary.
> 	DISCLAIMER:  This message is not intended to start a firestorm.
> I am only trying to simplify David's task and take a reasonable approach
> to publishing the specification.
>
> Ralph Berwanger
>
>