opendocument coordination call 2007-03-19

[Lars Oppermann <Lars.Oppermann@Sun.COM>]

* Rollcall
Yue Ma, IBM
Robert Weir, IBM
Helen Yue, IBM
David Faure, KDE
Florian Reueter, Novell
Michael Brauer, Sun Microsystems
Lars Oppermann, Sun Microsystems
Eike Rathke, Sun Microsystems
Oliver Wittmann, Sun Microsystems
Bruce D'Arcus, OpenDocument Foundation
Gary Edwards, OpenDocument Foundation
David A. Wheeler, OpenDocument Foundation

* Minutes from last coordination-call
The attending TC members unanimously accepted the minutes from the last
coordination-call.

* Action Items
None

Florian: what about application settings?
Michael: I think it's in the Wiki, but I have not yet followed up on it
.. the background being that we need to identify, if there are
application settings that should be defined in the specification
Florian: so this is not an action item
Michael: no, not right now
David: it was an Action item some time ago for Michael and me and I
posted a preliminary list of settings to the list
Michael: can you re-post that list again, so we can use it as a base for
moving on

Michael: Europe moves to daylight savings time next week. Should we keep
the GMT based meeting time or adjust now that all time zones, which
switch have actually switched... (so it would get to 7am pacific time)
Gary: I am ok with that.
Michael: We will than move the time starting next week to adjust for
daylight savinngs time...

* Lists
Michael: there is a proposal could be seen as a consensus. And other
things may be added on top of that
Florian: I still have my concerns
Oliver: I think the last message that Michael was referring to was the
answer to your consensus proposal...
Michael: I was referring to Thomas proposal of which might be extended later
Florian: this is not my view
... I started with list-overrides
... Thomas and David started with list IDs
... than you mixed the two concepts and what is there no longer reflects
Lars: can you restate requirements?
Florian: it is basically in my answer to Michael, but I can resend that
Florian: I believe technically there is a consensus. However the
personal relationship isn't working out, so I think it is not possible
to get to that consensus right now. We either need to reset those
relationship or just ask the TC for a decision
Oliver: I think the existing proposal should be the base for further
work. We can than extend and refine that proposal once it is approved.
... Your adjustments to your proposal showed that you are also taking up
things from my proposal, so the views seem to be converging.
Florian: regarding voting on your proposal, there was a correction to
that proposal sent by Thomas after the deadline that we set for Friday.
Oliver: we should vote on the proposal before that than and take Thoma's
correction to the proposal.
Florian: we really did not meet the deadline and please don't force me
to vote on your proposal
Michael: we refined proposals after voting in the past, so that is not
really problem. No need to delay because of that
Florian: 2 issues
- different treatment of text lists
- introduction of list table...
Rob: it is not like we are voting on a committee draft here. So I would
like to get the proposal to a more formal state, where it can also be
reviewed by the A11Y SC...
Gary: I am concerned about the proposal, because it is very narrow in
its goal. I am not sure that we are correctly considered the wider
community that is implementing ODF now
Rob: we know, that lists need to be extended, the question is: how do we
address that
Gary: we don't want to hold developers back. People implementing open
document trust us to make the right decision.
Michael: The main problem that I see, is that the full list issue is
very complex. We are discussing many aspects that are somewhat related.
But at the end of the day, all these aspects need to be analyzed
independently.
Right now we have two proposals where it is very difficult to tell where
they have consensuses and where they are in disagreement.
I would appreciate if we could concentrate on one proposal and if there
is a detail in that proposal which has to be reconsidered that we
reconsider that certain piece but don't have a whole new competing
proposal.
Florian: it is important for me that I understand Oliver's and Thomas'
proposal and I took the time to understand it. I would in return ask
Thomas and Oliver to take the same time and fully understand what I am
saying...
Oliver: but that would still leave us with two proposals
Lars: I think it is not efficient to debate only proposals. The two
parties might want to compare their goals and requirements...
Florian: correct, that is why I also included my use cases
Michael: ... so if you are saying that the two proposals are not that
different from a technical perspectives, why can't you continue your
work based on their proposal
Florian: I went to great length to fully understand Oliver's and Thomas'
proposal and I finally got it. Now I would like to present my point of view
Oliver: but why do you need a new proposal for that? It would be far
more efficient, if you would give your feedback in relation to the
standing proposal, rather than in a separate proposal. That way, we can
clearly see, where there is agreement and where there is disagreement
...
Rob: is everybody agreeing on the requirements, or are there disagreements
Florian: there are documents out there that are valid under ODF1.0 and I
think we have a responsibility to handle those in ODF1.2
Bruce: I too don't want to see two proposals. But there seems to be some
fundamental disagreement not so much on technical issues but on actual
requirements. And I would want to others like the A11Y to be able to
have a look at the requirements too
Florian: I can post a list of my requirements
Gary: I am partly responsible for us having two proposals because I
asked Florian to come up with a proposal that would cover OO.o's and
KOffice's requirements because I was concerned about that broader scope...
Michael: but looking at the current proposal from Oliver and Thomas,
there are a lot of things in there that are not controversial.
... we can save ourselves a lot of work, by focusing on the details that
are controversial
Florian: I disbelieve that the issues can be seen separated from the
whole proposal
... I really think that we should get a common understanding about the
requirements instead of thinking in terms of applications
Bruce: can we get that soon
Florian: I can post it today
Rob: right now we have proposal that is specific enough that I can
understand what is going on, and we could continue to bring it into the
right language. We can have the discussion on the technical details in
parallel
Michael: I agree, that we should continue working on the detailed
language of Oliver's proposal
Florian: I feel that you are trying to push this through and I am not
happy about that
Michael: that is not true, but we do have a schedule. For sake of
completeness I am somewhat in favor for Oliver's and Thomas
Florian: it contradicts with my requirement of being backwards
compatible with old ODF documents
and it contradicts my requirement to being independent of the actual
list implementation...

Lars: we could at the same time bring the proposal from Oliver anf
Thomas into more spec-ready text so it is easier to check of requirements...

DavidW: I am wrapping up our first cut on the submission of the formula
spec, so if anyone has any comments, please post them soon.

* NEW ACTION ITEMS:
Florian to post requirements, others add requirements to that list.


-- 
Lars Oppermann <lars.oppermann@sun.com>               Sun Microsystems
Software Engineer                                         Nagelsweg 55
Phone: +49 40 23646 959                         20097 Hamburg, Germany
Fax:   +49 40 23646 550                  http://www.sun.com/staroffice