On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 wrote:
> [:]
>
> | a) spam in the comment list archives may suggest to a casual
> | reader that the comment form facility is broken, or otherwise
> | unsiutable as a mean of getting an answer to a question
>
> Virtually all of the comments received on the UBL comment list are
> spam. We were promised a fix to this months ago. (I can't
> imagine what that fix could be, but that's what we were promised.)
>
> | Within OASIS Staff, I am now trying to create consensus around the
> | position that OASIS should support archived, two-way communication
> | (discussion, dialogue) between the TCs and the public.
Clarify "support" to mean "allow" -- rather than "disallow," as seems
to be the case with the revised TC Process document that prohibits
use of the comment facility for discussion.
> If that creates the expectation that we're going to have time to
> answer questions, a lot of people are going to be disappointed.
> We refer questions about UBL to the ubl-dev list and let the user
> community handle them as they will.
No such expectation/obligation would be intended, and none should be
created by the designation of any such forum as a publicly accessible
discussion forum.
[...]
-rcc
