I’ve looked into this further and
have also determined that the boilerplate is exceptionally dated. The
instructions there are from 2002/3 so can not possibly reflect current
realities at OASIS since the updated process policy and IPR changes. As a very
relevant example, the text and link regarding comments should only apply to a
Public Review Draft according to the OASIS process, not any CD. The boilerplate
is in error and should be corrected.
In the end I believe the TC should follow
the intent of the OASIS Process, instead of incorrect and outdated boilerplate
material, and remove these links
From: Patil, Sanjay
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005
7:57 AM
To: Marc Goodner; Paul Fremantle;
James Bryce Clark
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
+1
We should adapt the boiler plate to
reflects our realities.
Thanks,
Sanjay
From: Marc
Goodner [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, Oct 27, 2005 22:13
PM
To: Paul Fremantle; Patil, Sanjay;
James Bryce Clark
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
Importance: High
The boilerplate being used for the cover
page of this CD is wrong. There is information there that is inaccurate and in
my opinion misleading. It should not be applied on the grounds that it is in
the OASIS templates/samples and in other TC CDs.
The primary problem is the public review
link. The TC did not approve this CD for public review. That link simply should
not be in this CD.
I specifically asked if this was a public
review and was repeatedly told no. It has been emphasized on our calls that
this was not going to be up for public review. Insisting on this link because
it is part of the boilerplate seems wrong to me. I don’t think any
editorial comment about that link not being monitored or the TC not accepting
public comment at this time could be strong enough. Why would you give someone
the link if they are not supposed to use it? It certainly implies that the TC
will be taking comments on this CD at some point in time which is contrary to
the direction we were given.
Furthermore the comment form does not seem
like it should be there if the TC has not released a CD for public review yet.
Currently the form seems to be active but the links to the archive itself do
not function. Who even monitors mail sent to this alias?
I am less concerned about the errata link.
Again though, I just don’t understand why we would put boilerplate text
with a link to a document we never intend to produce in a CD.
Look, boilerplate is boilerplate. Why are
we insisting on inserting information into our first CD that is wrong because
it is part of a template. If it doesn’t apply it doesn’t apply.
Strike it.
Wsrm:
Remove this text from lines 36 – 38:
Others should use the
comment form at http://www.oasisopen.
org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=ws-rx. [ed.
note - Comments are
not
being accepted at this time.]
Remove lines 43 – 45
If necessary, the
errata page for this version of of the specification will be located at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-rx/documents/errata/1.1/index.html. [ed.
note –
There
is no errata at this time.]
Wsrmp:
Remove this text from lines 29 – 31:
Others should use the
comment form at http://www.oasisopen.
org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=ws-rx. [ed.
note - Comments are
not
being accepted at this time.]
Remove lines 36 – 38
If necessary, the
errata page for this version of of the specification will be located at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-rx/documents/errata/1.1/index.html. [ed.
note –
There
is no errata at this time.]
From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005
5:59 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz;
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
PDF for both please.
From: Gilbert Pilz
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005
5:16 PM
To:
Subject: [ws-rx-editors]
wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
Same deal for WS-RM Policy.
- g
