Re: [office-comment] About this mailing list

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

You are quoting the wrong section. You are quoting 3.2 Public Reviews. 
The TC currently is not conducting a public review. This section 
therefore currently does not apply.

What applies currently is section 2.8. It says:

> The purpose of the TC’s public comment facility is to receive comments
> from the public and is not for public discussion. Comments shall be
> publicly archived, and shall be forwarded to one or more Members of the
> TC including the TC Chair. TCs shall not be required to respond to
> comments. Comments to the TC made by Members of the TC must be made via
> the TC general email list, and comments made by non-TC members,
> including from the public, must be made via the TC’s comment facility.
> Comments shall not be accepted via any other means.

Best regards

Michael

On 03/02/09 14:17, marbux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 -
> Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@sun.com> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> we have seen a lot of discussions on this mailing list, that in general is a
>> good thing. However, as Rob Weir pointed out already, the purpose of this
>> mailing, as defined by the OASIS Technical Committee Process[1], is:
>>
>> "The purpose of the TC’s public comment facility is to receive comments from
>> the public and is not for public discussion."
> 
> That quotation is missing important following detail:
> 
> "Comments from non-TC Members must be collected via the TC’s archived
> public comment facility; . The TC must acknowledge the receipt of each
> comment, track the comments received, and publish to its primary
> e-mail list the disposition of each comment at the end of the review
> period."
> 
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#publicReview>.
> 
> [more]
> 
>> For this reason I too would like to ask that discussions are avoided at this
>> mailing list and instead are carried on at the users mailing list, to which
>> you can subscribe using
>>
>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> 
> Intending no disrespect, your request seems to conflict with what is
> on-topic on the users mailing list. As its name suggests, the topic of
> the users mailing list is "Public discussion on *using* the
> OPENDOCUMENT OASIS Standard." <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/>.
> The conversations that have been taking place on this list have to do
> with *development* of the ODF standard, not its *use.*
> 
> I would not raise this issue but for the fact that OASIS procedures
> quoted above call for posts to this list to be translated into TC
> agenda items, whilst explicitly stating that "comments made through
> any other means shall not be accepted." This language as I read it
> excludes posts made to the users list from the procedure leading to
> mandatory processing of comments by the TC and forbids acceptance of
> comments made on user list.
> 
> There is also the issue of whether discussion of comments on the users
> list would lead to claims at JTC 1 that issues were timely raised but
> not acted upon by the ODF TC, with a countering argument that comments
> made on the user list were raised in the wrong forum and therefore
> were not presented to the TC, per formal OASIS procedures.
> 
> Put more simply, posts to this list require action by the TC whilst
> posts to the users list do not.
> 
> Constructive criticisms of comments suggesting action by the TC are
> themselves comments suggesting action by the TC. E.g., my exchange of
> posts with Rob in regard to embedded scripts led to clarification of
> both of our positions and identification of an important area of
> agreement in regard to interoperability. It also resulted in a
> commitment by Rob to raise a discretely identified issue for the TC's
> consideration.
> 
> Forcing discussion of comments into a forum that excuses constructive
> criticism of the draft from being processed by the ODF TC as agenda
> items is also objectionable because bifurcating the discussion of
> comments from the comments themselves and bifurcating their archives
> as well seems rather drastically sub-optimal in terms of both
> communications and information management. The discussions become far
> more complicated to track and the linkage between posts on this list
> and posts on the other list is lost. The advantage of email threading
> is forfeit.
> 
> I do not suggest that a legitimate need for moderation may not arise.
> But the method chosen seems to call for people to forfeit their
> procedural right to have their posts translated into TC agenda items
> and I see no benefits gained by abusing the purpose of one mailing
> list to bifurcate discussions that are on-topic on another list.
> 
> If the request to post "discussion" to the user list is not withdrawn,
> I respectfully request more granular instructions for me to determine
> whether a particular post should go to this list or the other. E.g.,
> are posts stating that a discussion of a post may be found on the
> users list proper? Are TC co-chairs exempt from the "no discussion"
> request? TC members?
> 
> Does responding with a new subject line make constructive criticism of
> a comment proper?  Does the answer to the last question differ if I
> also change the text of the reply with an introductory sentence saying
> something like, "I suggest that the TC refine the suggestion made by
> Mr. X in the email titled Y in the following manner?"
> 
> Disclosure of the Chair's perceived benefit in bifurcated lists for
> comments and discussion of them might be most useful as an aid for me
> to determine which list I am expected to send a given post to.
> "Discussion" is a term that in my opinion lacks necessary precision in
> context.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Paul E. Merrell, J.D.
> 


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering