Re: [xcbf] Ballot failed, or new version started? Who has approvedthe version 2 draft?

Title: 

John,

You seem confused about some of the facts. But I'll try 

to help clarify.

John Larmouth wrote:

*If* we
get technical agreement in the group on where we are heading re 

Base64 and on what encoding rules are going to be used, I am sure I can 

sort out the text.  But the agreement is essential. 

 
It is 100% agreement that you have demanded. 0% NO votes is what

 you required for future changes. Let's not loose sight of that as we move

forward. 

  
We have super majority agreement on the text in the current

 XCBF 1.0 CS document. 

  
We have simple majority agreement on the text in the current 

v2 draft.

  
XCBF 1.0 has been approved as an OASIS CS by the TC. 

  
XCBF 1.0 CS has been strengthened by a 30 day public review. 

Public comments have been addressed and approved by the TC.

  
XCBF 1.0 CS has been approved for submission to OASIS for

consideration as an OASIS Standard by the TC.

  
The current v2 draft has already achieved technical agreement 

on the issues you cite above - seven of nine XCBF members

who voted approved this text as a new CS in the last TC ballot.

It is one vote shy of becoming a new CS. 

So, enough whingeing, please. Let's see something positive to improve 

and progress the work. How would you change the current draft so 

that it is acceptable to 100% of the TC?

Please propose alternative text to replace or augment the text in the 

current v2 draft. To reach further agreement, the TC needs to see

a concrete proposal - the actual words you wish to see changed and 

your proposed alternative wording. 

When your proposed text meets with 100% approval of the TC, it 

should then be acceptable by your own stated requirements.  

Phil

We can discuss how v2 (which I think Phil is keen on) should best be  progressed
at a later date. 

 

John L 

 

Bancroft Scott wrote: 

  On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, John Larmouth wrote: 

 

 

    Hm.  Back to the drawying board on the Editor! 
Pity. Paul would have 

done a good job. 

    
 

 

Do you have the bandwidth to do this, John?  Note that Phil has already 

done the vast majority of the work, and relatively little remains to be 

done. 

 

Bancroft