[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Review scheduling (was: Re: UBL TC Plenary Minutes...)
[tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au:] | so the real question the TC should be asking is "When we look at | the schemas for the second public review are they so different | from the first public review schemas that 15 days is not adequate | for public comments on the changes?" Right. A two-week public review (the minimum mandated by the OASIS TC process) is already part of our schedule. The rules say that the only points open for comment at that stage are the things that changed between the first public review and the second public review. Whether we want to go beyond that and lengthen the second public review or hold further public reviews is up to us. | and if we made it 21 days or 90 days would we get a different | answer? Experience teaches that we probably would not. The most relevant comments come at the beginning of the review and right after the time for review has closed -- pretty much regardless of the length of the review period. Whether for political reasons it would be better to hold a longer review or to hold additional reviews is a different question and one that we should consider in our TC calls the week of 5 June. Jon
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]