OK. Then I'd prefer to keep it as it is. Thanks Jon for clarification.
All the best
Steve
On 09/03/06, <> wrote:
> [:]
>
> There may be a problem with the progress of the UBP directly to
> ballot as candidate committee specification in that it only
> underwent the second UBL-1.0-SBS public review (15 days) and has
> not had a review as a standalone draft.
>
> Right. It will have to start over (TC balloting and then 60-day
> review).
>
> | If it does need to complete a 50 day review to be allowed to
> | progress to committee specification ballot, how about we package
> | it together with the UBP 2.0 which is at the stage of waiting for
> | a vote to become a committee draft and public review
> | draft. Perhaps the two would then be called UBP 1.0 and be
> | packaged as one set of ebXML artifacts covering both UBL 1.0 and
> | UBL 2.
>
> OK with me. But note that if the UBP part is removed from 1.0
> SBS, it will have to start over again, too.
>
> Jon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
