ubl — archive

[Tim McGrath]

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Re: [ubl] Joint meeting Tuesday




From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:26:47 +0800










thanks for letting the meeting of 23rd March start later.


i am not sure you need be too concerned about the lack of lead time. 
you suggest that the call on tuesday 23rd is to vote on something. 
that is not the case (mainly for the reasons you outline but Jon also
noted some procedural issues).


the call on the 23rd is to review the draft 9.1 package sent out
yesterday.  I am also fairly safe in assuming this review will carry
over into Wednesday's call times as well.


I think what Jon was proposing is that we use this week to evaluate the
draft 9 schemas and try to come up with a viable UBL 1.0 package.  This
was the intent of his errata note to announce the meeting of March
30th.  i attach a copy below...

CORRECTION: In mail sent earlier I said that this meeting would be
held only if we failed to achieve consensus on the UBL schemas
following the joint review call scheduled for 23 March.  I forgot
that the OASIS process now requires a full seven days to check for
consensus by email.  To avoid losing a week from our schedule,
therefore, we will need to hold a plenary meeting 30 March in any
case.  As it happens, there are organizational matters that can
profitably be considered during this call even if we find
ourselves in complete agreement on the schemas.  I will post an
agenda for the meeting before the end of next week.  If anyone has
additional items for the agenda, please send them to me by COB
Tuesday 23 March.


I certainly think we could move the March 30th call to April 1st (even
if it is a somewhat inauspicious date).  The important thing is that
everyone who  has an opinion gets heard and their issues resolved
before this.  We can do this via email and calls.  The plenary time
slot should be a formality.



CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:


  
Tim,

I don't have a problem with the later start for the 23rd, but I am concerned by the limited time that will be available between the release of the schema and our plan to vote on them.  I do not feel that 1 day is sufficient for the QA team, the validation team, and NDR to review the schema.  I would also like to delay the 30 March plenary meeting until 1 April when I am available.  We also need to prepare a list of the various decisions to be reviewed sufficiently in advance to give all members time to review, discuss with others in the TC, and be properly prepared to make decisions.

Mark