OASIS Open Mailing List Archives  ·  All Lists  ·  ebxml-msg  ·  2002-01

ebxml-msg — archive

[Date Prev]  |  [Thread Prev]  |  [Thread Next]  |  [Date Next]   —  [Date Index]  |  [Thread Index]  |  [Month Index]  |  [List Home]

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 > >

[Date Prev]  |  [Thread Prev]  |  [Thread Next]  |  [Date Next]   —  [Date Index]  |  [Thread Index]  |  [Month Index]  |  [List Home]