Hello everyone,
I'm not sure where the communication has run afoul -- I detailed the changes that needed to be made in my email to the
TC on 16 Jan.
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/email/archives/200701/msg00002.html
I received a new copy from Dr. Leff on Monday of this week; I have forwarded a copy of that message to the TC mail list
so that all can remain apprised of the current situation.
I have asked for a copy of the schemas referenced in the specification - the TC Process requires any and all schemas,
DTDs, etc. be provided separately as plain text files. I have also asked for the name(s) of the editor(s) to be placed
on the cover sheet - this is standard OASIS practice; acknowledgements are a separate section maintained typically at
the end of the specification itself. I believe in this case the person doing the actual editing is Dr. Leff, but there
may be other names that should be listed there as well.
I have not yet had the opportunity to review the newly submitted file, but it appears that it is still without editorial
attribution and I am still without the necessary schemas/DTDs.
Regards,
Mary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dazza Greenwood [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:03 PM
> To: James Bryce Clark
> Cc: Patrick Gannon; Mary McRae; ; Dave
> Marvit; Dr. Laurence Leff; Leff;
> Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Schedule for IPR
> Transition or TC closure
>
> Hi Jamie,
>
> Good to hear from you and I'm glad to see you're keeping the
> process on track for OASIS. Thanks for the reminder on the
> deadlines. Our TC does not intend to continue to exist after
> publishing our 1.0 specification, and we intend to have that
> published within the shortest possible time line, not
> extending to April 15th of this year. Unfortunately, it
> seems to me that there is a failure to communicate by OASIS
> which, if uncorrected soon, may risk our TC running afoul of
> the IP transition deadline. We're puzzled as to why OASIS
> has not published our draft specification for the initial 60
> day comment period already. We do not expect to make any
> further substantive changes to this draft, instead publishing
> the draft ASAP after the comment period and leaving more
> substantive revisions for future work by a future TC or
> taking other appropriate action. We do expect that OASIS
> will either publish our specification for public comment
> immediately or will respond to my e-mail to Mary McCrae from
> over a week ago asking OASIS to "please let us know exactly
> what blocking issues remain to be resolved before our
> specification can be published for comment?" (footnote 1).
> As of today, I have not had a reply to that request and Dr.
> Leff, acting as our scribe, has told us he is uncertain how
> to bring the process of back and forth with OASIS to a close.
>
> We delivered our specification in draft form in December to
> OASIS and any further delay by OASIS would be problematic for
> the TC and tantamount to OASIS causing this TC to abandon the
> IP terms I and other worked hard to negotiate in good faith
> with OASIS as a condition of merging our non-profit into
> yours. Ultimately it would not serve the interests of OASIS
> in facilitating standards if OASIS were to be the cause of
> our TC to go out of existence before OASIS published our work
> under the IP terms we have agreed. It is personally
> important to me that any specification published by this TC
> be under the existing IP and LegalXML IP statement that was
> so carefully negotiated between LegalXML Inc and OASIS-OPEN
> for precisely this purpose. The existing IP is exactly what
> I signed up for when I contributed by efforts toward this
> goal and that I negotiated and voted for as a member of the
> Board of LegalXML Inc. Given the delay is at this point an
> OASIS issue, one possible way forward we could discuss would
> involve agreeing (with OASIS Board ratification in a timely
> manner) that any further delay by OASIS should cause the IP
> deadline to be paused from this day forward for this TC until
> such time as OASIS publishes our draft delivered last year.
> Please help us to help you by publishing our specification
> now so that we can come to rest, or please tell me what more
> you require of us before you can finally get this off your desk.
>
> I note that, with this additional week of delay by OASIS, we
> are now very close to missing our IP deadline. We can,
> however, still make the deadline if you act now or very soon.
> Please help us out here and reply to my e-mail from January
> 17th detailing any further obstacles to your publishing our
> specification for comment or - much better - by simply
> publishing it immediately.
>
> Yours truly,
> - DG
> PS: In case it matters toward removing obstacles to
> publishing our draft, we intend to postpone decision on the
> final names to populate the editor and other attribution
> fields until we gather a little more information and we
> intend to leave those fields with the temporary characters
> "PLACE HOLDER", which Dr. Leff has already incorporated into
> the draft delivered to OASIS.
>
> Footnote 1: Mail to Mary McRea dated January 17th, 2007
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Dazza Greenwood <>
> To:
> Cc: ; Peter Meyer <>;
> ; Dave Marvit <>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:41:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] LegalXML-eContracts committee draft
>
> Mary,
> Thanks again for all your time spent helping the eContracts
> TC to get our specification into shape to be published for
> the 60 day public comment period. A couple of questions have
> occurred to the TC about the process and I agree to ask for
> clarification from you so we can determine whether we need a
> live meeting to discuss. First, can you please let us know
> exactly what blocking issues remain to be resolved before our
> specification can be published for comment? It seems that
> feedback from Ken is needed to address errors in docbook - is
> that the final obstacle? Second, we're puzzled by the editor
> field. The TC wishes to grant attribution for the content to
> each participant equally, and we have done so in the back of
> the document. Is there a need to also list editors? Most of
> all we'd like to know how other TC's handle attribution.
> Thanks very much,
> - DG
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: James Bryce Clark <>
> To:
> Cc: Patrick Gannon <>; Mary
> McRae <>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46:13 AM
> Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Schedule for IPR Transition or
> TC closure
>
>
> To: Members of the OASIS LegalXML E-Contracts TC, and their
> organizational primary representatives
>
> Please note that we will require action from this TC in a
> very short timespan, if the committee wishes to remain active
> after 15 April 2007, the transition deadline for our 2005
> OASIS IPR Policy.
> Those TCs that have not yet formally initiated their
> transition ballot process should do so immediately, or may
> risk closure.
> When we adopted the current IPR Policy, all pre-existing
> OASIS TCs were given a 2-year period for transition to the new rules.
> This TC continues to operate under the prior IPR Policy, but
> must complete a successful IPR Transition vote, or close, by
> 15 April 2007.
> Many TCs have transitioned, but some including this one
> remain unresolved. We understand that this TC would like to continue.
> We'd be pleased to have your further participation here. But
> this only can occur if the TC completes its transition on
> time. That requires that the TC immediately select a mode
> and initiate the process within a few weeks. Otherwise it's
> unlikely that a successful transition vote can be completed
> before 15 April, and the TC must be closed. Please see the
> timeline below.
> Time is short, and we value your continued contributions.
> We encourage you not to take the chance of postponing action
> any longer. Your TC members may need time to agree on a
> choice among the new policy's three IPR licensing modes. The
> final Transition Approval Ballot must be *unanimous* in order
> to succeed.
> Please contact me, my colleague Mary McRae, or any other
> member of the OASIS standards development staff if you have
> questions or need assistance with the required votes.
> Thank you for your work to support OASIS and open standards.
> Regards JBC
>
> ~ James Bryce Clark
> ~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS ~
>
>
> TIMELINE: We strongly encourage completion of the transition
> ballot by the end of March:
>
> * The TC's vote to choose an IPR mode should completed by
> 13 February 2007, if at a live quorate meeting, or if done by
> web ballot, the ballot should be opened by 6 February 2007.
> * The "Transition Request" notice of the vote to the TC
> Administrator should be sent no later than 14 February 2007.
> The last possible date is 1 March 2007.
> * The 14-day Transition ballot should commence no later
> than 16 March 2007.
> * The last date for completion of a successful unanimous
> Transition ballot to avoid closure is 15 April 2007.
>
> REFERENCES:
> 2005 IPR Policy: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/
> intellectualproperty.php
> Rules for TC IPR Transition: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/
> ipr_transition_policy.php
> FAQ about Transition Policy: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/
> transition_faq.php
