SV: [ubl] 3th public review

What I say in point three is that the editor of the spreadsheet should also
be the editor of the schemas. I will vote ageinst a 3th review if we are
going to have the same three weeks of misunderstanding that we suffered from
during the production of prd 2.

Therefore I suggest that I (and my colleges) as the PSC editor will do the
nessesary changes to the spreadsheets and the schemas. This was have we did
it in the first review.

I see no contradiction in that.

The reson for pont one is that we cannot spend weeks of discussion what
should be in the standard.

Stephen, I hope you will be able to join our meeting monday.

King regards

Peter

-----

Oprindelig meddelelse

-----

Fra: Stephen Green [mailto:]
Sendt: 18. august 2006 10:41
Til: 
Emne: Re: [ubl] 3th public review

At the risk of being controversial (as usual :-(  ) I'd question whether
point three is in line with OASIS rules about openness :-) - just read
the OASIS copyright on the schema files. And point four seems to
be contrary to process but that seems more debatable to me. Point one
seems contrary to the rules about an SC too (it can only recommend, not
decide on the TC's behalf).

All the best

Steve

>>> "Peter Borresen"