Hi Sanjay,
Just an FYI regarding the comment archives. The comment link isn't broken; the archive page isn't actually created until the first
comment is submitted.
Regards,
Mary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 6:48 PM
> To: ; Marc Goodner; James Bryce
> Clark;
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
>
>
> Although some early feedback from public on the CD may not
> hurt, it would mean that we have to ensure that the web form
> and the mailing list are working correctly. I had quickly
> tried the link for pubilc comments on the TC public page
> (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx-comment/) and
> this link is currently broken. So either we can try to
> address these infrastructural issues now or address them when
> we really have to (during Committee Specification phase). I
> prefer the later. We have enough things to worry about for now :)
>
> About the link to errata, what we have recently voted on is
> an interim CD and any errata related to that would take the
> form of either an editor AI or a specific TC issue. We don't
> want to introduce another way of tracking the specification
> changes at this point of time.
>
> So in essence, although I agree with the spirit of leaving
> the template text unchanged, I think it introduces more
> variables for us now than what we want to. So I suggest that
> we use the adapted text for now.
>
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mary McRae [mailto:]
> > Sent: Tuesday, Nov 01, 2005 15:20 PM
> > To: 'Marc Goodner'; Patil, Sanjay; 'James Bryce Clark';
>
> > Cc:
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I had sent previous communications to Marc and Jamie; my
> apologies
> > for not copying the group.
> >
> > First, let me apologize for any confusion TC editors had
> in locating
> > the current templates. They are found at
> docs.oasis-open.org/templates
> > and exist in 3 flavors:
> > Microsoft Office Word, OpenOfficeOrg Writer, and XHTML.
> >
> > Beyond that, let me also say up front that TC Administration does
> > not officially get involved in reviewing specifications
> until they are
> > submitted for public review. At that time the documents are
> checked to
> > make sure that they are in accordance with the current TC Process
> > policy. These documents are not yet at that stage;
> therefore my only
> > concern at this point is to make sure that the editors are aware of
> > the proper location of the templates and to address any
> questions or
> > misunderstandings regarding their use.
> >
> >
> > The templates at the above location are those created in
> conjunction
> > with the OASIS Technical Advisory Board late last summer
> (2004). They
> > were submitted to the chairs list for review and input was
> > incorporated before final publication. After some conversations the
> > past couple of weeks regarding the official notices text, we
> > determined that it would be best to have unique templates
> based on the
> > particular IPR Policy the under which a TC was working. I
> created two
> > versions for each template: one with the legacy IPR Policy notice
> > text, and another with the
> > 4-15-05 IPR Policy notice text.
> >
> > Regarding the mention of the public comment list: this list
> is always
> > available on each TC's public home page; the public is
> always welcome
> > to provide input or ask questions. Any comments received during a
> > public review must be accounted for. They must be logged in
> some form
> > and their disposition recorded. Comments received during any other
> > time do not have this burden, although most TCs do respond to such
> > comments. I believe that the TC chair(s) are automatically
> subscribed
> > to the comment list but will verify that with our IT dept.
> The link is
> > there merely to provide easy access should a reader wish to provide
> > input or ask questions, remembering that all TC documents
> are always
> > publicly viewable. If you feel that the current wording could be
> > improved upon, please send any suggestions to me and I will
> forward to
> > the TAB Quality subcommittee for consideration.
> >
> > Regarding the mention of errata: typically when a document is
> > published it is intended to be 100% accurate, without error or
> > omission. Reality is that sometimes errata must be created.
> > The mention of the location of the errata is not to imply
> that errata
> > exist; only to let the reader know where they can find any
> errata that
> > might be created in the future. Again, if you feel that the current
> > wording courld be improved upon, please send any
> suggestions to me and
> > I will forward to the TAB Quality subcommittee for consideration.
> >
> > Again, my apologize for the confusion, and will work with
> IT to try
> > to make the pages more visible. We're also working on
> getting the TC
> > guidelines rewritten; when we updated the TC Process Policy earlier
> > this year the existing information became obsolete. And once again,
> > please note that it typically isn't until the TC requests a public
> > review that TC Admin gets involved in actually reviewing the
> > documents, unless requested to do so by the TC.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Mary P McRae
> > OASIS
> > Manager of TC Administration
> > email:
> > web: www.oasis-open.org
> > phone: 603.232.9090
> > cell: 603.557.7985
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:48 PM
> > > To: Patil, Sanjay; James Bryce Clark;
> > > Cc: ;
> > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
> > >
> > > I'm happy with that.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:06 PM
> > > To: James Bryce Clark; Marc Goodner;
> > > Cc: ;
> > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we have to nail down the issue of status text
> rather quickly
> > > before the links for CD I are published.
> > >
> > > How about removing the text that refers to the public
> > comments mailing
> > > list, web form, errata page, etc. I don't see very many
> > > issues with the
> > > rest of the status text. Here is the cut-paste of the
> > edited text for
> > > your quick reference. Please chime in and raise your opinion
> > > if you are
> > > ok with this text. If there are no concerns, I propose to
> > include this
> > > in the CD I revs.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------
> > > -----------------------------------
> > > This document was last revised or approved by the OASIS WS-RX
> > > TC on the
> > > above date. The level of approval is also listed above. Check the
> > > current location noted above for possible later revisions of this
> > > document.
> > >
> > > For information on whether any patents have been disclosed
> > that may be
> > > essential to implementing this specification, and any
> > offers of patent
> > > licensing terms, please refer to the Intellectual Property Rights
> > > section of the Technical Committee web page
> > > (www.oasis-open.org/committees/[TC short name] /ipr.php.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sanjay
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, Oct 25, 2005 16:51 PM
> > > > To: ; Patil, Sanjay;
> > > > Cc: ;
>
> > > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-01
> > > >
> > > > Please keep my colleague Mary McRae in the loop on this
> > > > feedback, as
> > > > she is in charge of the templates and (when a spec reaches a
> > > > higher level
> > > > of approval) compliance with them. Copying her here. I will
> > > > share my take
> > > > on these issues with her, and ask her to work them out with the
> > > > committee. Regards JBC
> > > >
> > > > At 12:13 PM 10/28/2005, Marc Goodner wrote:
> > > > >Ive 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 dont 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 dont
> > > > >>>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 doesnt apply it doesnt 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.]
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>* * *
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
