Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit

Well if the rest of the TC are happy with it, can we set up a Kavi ballot
rather than wait until the next telecon?

Mark.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Newcomer, Eric" <>
To: "Mark Little" <>; "Doug Bunting"
<>
Cc: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit


> Ok - I'm with you now.  Let's reopen.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 4:55 AM
> To: Doug Bunting; Newcomer, Eric
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit
>
>
> I agree with Doug: the original issue was about whether we should use the
> term Respondant or Respondent. I flipped a coin when I made the suggestion
> for Issue 7 to the group (should have checked the dictionary!) So,
although
> we voted on what it would be, the fact is that Respondant isn't a valid
word
> anyway and if I'd known about that at the time I'd have voted against my
own
> resolution :-0
>
> Mark.
>
> ----
> Mark Little,
> Chief Architect, Transactions,
> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>
> www.arjuna.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Bunting" <>
> To: "Newcomer, Eric" <>
> Cc: "Mark Little" <>; <>
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 8:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit
>
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > On the other hand, spelling was all of the original issue.  I have
> > updated the comments in Bugzilla[1] to describe the extent of the issue.
> >
> > As far as the process goes, I am getting rather lost here.  This type of
> > problem will remain a rather minor, editorial issue until
> > implementations force us to carefully consider the impact of the tiniest
> > name change.  If it should not have been opened as an issue for the
> > group to consider, fine and we should leave it closed but do the right
> > thing (fix the spelling).  If this issue was worth the original
> > consideration we gave it, I suggest reopening is the correct way
forward.
> >
> > thanx,
> > doug
> >
> > [1] http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7
> >
> > On 22-Jan-04 10:31, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> >
> > > This seems like a spelling or usage fix to me, not necessary to repoen
> the issue to fix it, unless there is some proposal to change more than the
> name.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Little [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:23 AM
> > > To: 
> > > Cc: Doug Bunting
> > > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit
> > >
> > >
> > > Are we going to re-open this issue?
> > >
> > > Mark.
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Mark Little,
> > > Chief Architect, Transactions,
> > > Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> > >
> > > www.arjuna.com
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Mark  <mailto:> Little
> > > To: Greg Pavlik <mailto:>
> > > Cc: Doug Bunting <mailto:>  ;
> 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:19 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit
> > >
> > > That depends what you mean by reviewing of port types. If you mean
> checking them for English/US-English spelling then that's something that
> could be done by running them through a spell-checker. I'm not going to
> volunteer for that ;-) But it could be a single issue.
> > >
> > > If you mean a wholesale change to names, then that should be separate
> issues, as each may need to be argued differently.
> > >
> > > Mark.
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Mark Little,
> > > Chief Architect, Transactions,
> > > Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> > >
> > > www.arjuna.com
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Greg  <mailto:> Pavlik
> > > To: Mark Little <mailto:>
> > > Cc: Doug Bunting <mailto:>  ;
> 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:12 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit
> > >
> > > In this case, it's a typo fix to get the XML in a consumable state.
Does
> reviewing the names of port types fall under this or a separate issue? I
> think this is something that might be helpful.
> > >
> > > Mark Little wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Doug, I'm happy to re-open the issue (which isn't actually closed yet
> until
> > >
> > > I get the updates from Simeon). However, I presume it's down to the TC
> to
> > >
> > > agree to re-open it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: "Doug Bunting"  "> <mailto:>
> <>
> > >
> > > To:  "> <mailto:>
> <>
> > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:32 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Minutes Confcall January 19
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies for missing the call yesterday due to the holiday.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Did the group agree to Mark's proposed resolution for issue 7 without
> > >
> > > modification?  That is, are we going with "Respondant"?  Agreement on
> > >
> > > this issue implies the group is not paying attention because
> > >
> > > "respondant" is not in the dictionaries I have checked, even as a
> > >
> > > British spelling.  "Respondent" seems to be the correct word though
its
> > >
> > > meaning involves a legal nuance (being a defendant) irrelevant to our
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > usage.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > thanx,
> > >
> > > doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 20-Jan-04 07:01, Guy Pardon wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Below are the meetings I recorded. Due to the interference on the line
I
> > >
> > > am not sure if I got everything right.
> > >
> > > Please send your comments to me if you have any.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Guy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Next item: issues resolution
> > >
> > > Martin: The only way to make progress is by going over issues and
> > >
> > > resolve them before moving on.
> > >
> > > Did everyone get a chance to read the issues? Silence. Any motions?
> > >
> > > Remark: In most cases they appear typos or editorial fixes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Motion to adopt them (issues 1-11) by Greg. Anybody seconding? Yes:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Simeon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Any discussions? No. Objections? No. Motion approved.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Simeon still has to do an update.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>