I agree with Harm's approach. If we start with the sub-committees we
know for sure that we need, we can always add as needed. To begin with,
we can have the technical sub-committee look at the OECD work, Glenda's
suggestion, and other technical items. We can have the business
sub-committee look at business processes and liaisons. As we get further
along and produce some deliverables per our charter, we will be in a
much better position to revisit the sub-committee makeup and decide.
"H.J.M. van Burg" wrote:
>
> Andy, John,
>
> As we look at the present list of participants in de TC, I do not know if we
> have the luxury situation to have three subgroups yet. I think we could do
> with two for the moment where one has a more technical scope and the other
> one a more business approach.
> Liaison with other bodies can take place on ad hoc basis, but most tiems, I
> presume it will be technical.
> I am fine with the descriptions produced so far but I would suggest that we
> try to start of with two groups. In my mind that was also the opinion
> during the teleconference.
> Of course we could do it otherwise.
> Any suggestions?
>
> Harm-Jan
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [mailto:]
> Verzonden: maandag 24 februari 2003 19:46
> Aan: Andy Greener
> CC:
> Onderwerp: Re: [tax] Sub-committees
>
> Andy,
>
> I think it's likely that there'll be overlap of some sort between all three
> sub-committees and I expect the sub-committes will need to further define
> themselves in terms of objectives, deliverables and responsibilities, once
> they're formed. However, as far as acting as liason is concerned, one
> possible way this could be organized is for the Liason and Marketing group
> to focus on identifying potential partnerships, establishing communication
> and bringing the appropriate business or technical specialists into any
> related discussions. Likewise, the business and technical groups may
> suggest to the liason group those partnerships and communications we may
> need to go after. The detailed work between any two organizations would
> be in the domain of the business and techincal groups. I suppose we need
> to decide whether this separation of responsibility is warranted. Further
> comment?
>
> John
>
> John Glaubitz
> Vertex, Inc.
> Phone: +1 484 595 5877
>
>
>
> Andy Greener
>
> <> To:
>
>
> cc:
>
> 02/24/2003 12:27 Subject: Re: [tax]
> Sub-committees
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
> >Here are the possible names and descriptions for our sub committees:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Technical Analysis <
> >The charter of the Technical Analysis sub committee is to implement the
> >requirements established during business analysis of the Tax
> Administration
> >process using XML Schema, DTD and other technologies. The sub committee
> >will identify technologies, techniques and best practices needed to
> produce
> >practical solutions and satisfy specific needs of tax participants.
> >
> >> Liaison and Marketing <
> >The Liaison and Marketing sub committee will establish relationships with
> >customers, partners and subject matter experts to ensure that the Tax XML
> >committee produces practical standards that meet the requirements and
> >expectations of tax participants. The purpose of the committee is to
> >contribute and enhance the evolution of XML standards with the ability to
> >meet the Tax Administration requirements.
>
> I think there is some overlap here, since identifying technologies and
> techniques should be done in conjunction with existing standards groups
> or bodies, and that seems to me to be 'liaison' of a kind.
>
> Perhaps the 'technical liaison' should sit with the Technical Analysis
> SC, and the customer/partner/marketing stuff should remain in the
> Liaison and Marketing SC. Comments?
>
> Andy
> --
>
> Andy Greener Mob: +44 7836 331933
> GID Ltd, Reading, UK Tel: +44 118 956 1248
> Fax: +44 118 958 9005
