ubl — archive

SV: [ubl] 3th public review

From: Sven Rasmussen
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:35:00 -0000

What I say in point three is that the editor of the spreadsheet should also be the editor of the schemas. I will vote ageinst a 3th review if we are going to have the same three weeks of misunderstanding that we suffered from during the production of prd 2. Therefore I suggest that I (and my colleges) as the PSC editor will do the nessesary changes to the spreadsheets and the schemas. This was have we did it in the first review. I see no contradiction in that. The reson for pont one is that we cannot spend weeks of discussion what should be in the standard. Stephen, I hope you will be able to join our meeting monday. King regards Peter ----- Oprindelig meddelelse ----- Fra: Stephen Green [mailto:[email protected]] Sendt: 18. august 2006 10:41 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: [ubl] 3th public review At the risk of being controversial (as usual :-( ) I'd question whether point three is in line with OASIS rules about openness :-) - just read the OASIS copyright on the schema files. And point four seems to be contrary to process but that seems more debatable to me. Point one seems contrary to the rules about an SC too (it can only recommend, not decide on the TC's behalf). All the best Steve >>> "Peter Borresen"