3. Adoption of agenda/schedule planning Add agenda
item: working relationship with ATG and X12.
Discussion points for those who might have to leave early:
Local vs. Global: Mark gave us information from last
weeks CEFACT meeting. There are several issues that make a difference to
the outcome of this debate. There is a strong incentive to begin the
convergence between the ATG and the UBL NDR groups. Jon and Mark made a
decision last week to invite the ATG members to begin to observe and enter into
the discussions on this list serve. We want to invite them to co-locate
our meetings with them at the London meeting. This is really a joint
meeting. This helps to guide the ATG folks.
Jon: I pushed to have this happen, after sitting in the meetings it
became clear that 1) people in ATG 2 whom we are going to be dealing with, are
just as smart and pig headed as this group. 2) also clear they would be
reinventing the NDR's and they would be spending a lot of time doing this, that
could be better if we included them into discussions and get consensus in the
combined two groups. Some of our big decisions such as local vs. global,
would best be decided between the two groups together.
Lisa: There are logistical problems with this because of the new OASIS
members list serve. Getting people onto the list serve that are not
members, does not work.
Jon: There are ways around this. Create a new ad-hoc mail list.
We still need to wait and see if they are willing to participate. We could
do this per question, or do this completely with the combined groups. Or
ask Karl to add ATG list serve to this list serve. Or could use the ATG2 list
serve - add UBL participants - but no list for just ATG2. All of ATG not
interested.
Kris: There are other ways, the individual membership fee is not that
great. Otherwise we should ask OASIS to agree with this.
Mark: Other alternative would be to move it to the ATG list
serve. We can just put this list serve in as a member to the ATG
list.
Action Item: 1) Jon talk to Karl about using OASIS comment
list.
Jon: This is our strategy, and it changes the debate deadline for Local vs.
Global. We extend again the deadline until after the London meeting?
We are going to make an attempt at getting agreement before London. We
will continue our elist discussion.
Agreed.
Jon: Staging for this debate: continue the list serve, and will ask Karl to
create a list. We will invite ATG2 to join in. We will start with
local vs. global.
Mark: The ATG group joining in this decision will not have a vote, this is
only for them to join in the debate and get a chance to voice their
opinions.
Jon: We want to have this decision made and have both groups happy with the
outcome, so that they will not, at some point in the future be asking to rethink
the decision again.
Sue: This invitation we are making is very important to be open and
sent to all the groups involved.
Jon: Do we agree that we will take the local vs. global discussion to
email only and will not be discussing it on the calls?
Gunther: Mark made a very good list of pro and cons about local vs.
global, this becomes part of the materials. Mark will send out.
AI: Lisa put together top 10 or so of previous local/global discussion
papers to drive this new discussion. Work with Mark on how to get that out
to both groups. Need to capture discussions in October when decision was
reversed, and also in F2F.
Document is on hold. Document has moved forward
from version .22.