OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [office] Lists - please read


Michael,

Sounds like a winner to me!

+1!

Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend!

Patrick

Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:

> Dear TC members,
>
> first of all I would like to ask for your apologies for this rather 
> long mail, but I think the complexity of this topics requires this. 
> This mail contains a proposal how to proceed. If you are interested in 
> only that, you may skip this mail until you find a heading that 
> indicates the start of this proposal.
>
> As discussed in the last con call, a discussion about backward 
> compatibility guidelines has been started. I think this is very 
> helpful. We should continue this discussion, but I suggest to exclude 
> all list related questions from this discussion, because these 
> guidelines have a validity not only for lists. I will put the backward 
> compatibility topic on the agenda of our call for Monday. Maybe we are 
> able to agree on something in the call, but I think this is not 
> essential for continuing the list discussions.
>
> The backwards compatibility guidelines will be helpful in our list 
> discussions, because they will provide the authors of the list 
> proposals with information what is requested by the TC (or individual 
> TC members), and they will provide all others with some guidelines 
> that may have to be considered than analyzing the proposals. However, 
> I don't think that the guidelines alone will be sufficient to come to 
> an unambiguous conclusion whether a certain proposal would be acceptable.
>
> One other issue we have is that the two proposals we have currently 
> are very different in the style they are written, and in the style how 
> they are explained. This makes it actually very difficult to compare 
> them without doing a very deep analysis of the two proposals. That's 
> something we need to address, too. Unfortunately, we have not much 
> time left to come to a conclusion, and we will not have a TC call 
> between the 2nd, and the 23th of April. For this reason, I suggest 
> that we do not wait until we have backward compatibility guidelines 
> before addressing this issue, but to work on these two tasks in 
> parallel. More precisely, I would like to propose the following 
> roadmap for our discussions:
>
> Roadmap Proposal
> ----------------
>
> We reset our discussions, meaning that we assume that no proposals 
> have been submitted to the TC. We further continue our discussions 
> about backward compatibility. The authors of the list proposals are 
> asked to follow these discussions closely, and shall based on these 
> discussions decide until April, the 5th COB, whether they want to 
> submit a proposal to the TC.
>
> If a TC member wants to submit a proposal, then this proposal must 
> meet the following formal requirements:
> 1. It must be submitted the the TC's document repository so that it 
> can be easily and unambiguously located.
> 2. It must contain the literal text that should be added to the 
> specification, and also the text that should be removed. In other 
> words, it must be identifiable what exactly is changed in the 
> specification, and what will be the resulting text if the proposals 
> gets accepted.
> 3. Explanatory text must be differentiable from the proposed text for 
> the specification. In other words, it must be identifiable what text 
> is added to the specification, and what text is only explanatory.
> 4. Where possible, the changes should be explained by examples that 
> show what ODF does (or does not) allow now and how the proposal would 
> change that.
>
> Proposals must be submitted to the TC until April, the 5th COB, which 
> means it has to be worked on them in parallel to the backward 
> compatibility guidelines. That's not the best situation, but I think 
> our schedule does not allow another solution if we want to have some 
> buffer time, which I think we should have.
>
> After the proposals have been submitted, and if we get multiple 
> proposals, then the proposers get a chance to prepare an analysis of 
> how they think their proposal differs from the other proposal 
> technically and why. This should be a single document. The aim of this 
> analysis shall not be to advertise the own proposal, but to explain to 
> the TC members what the differences between the proposal are, and to 
> figure out whether the two proposals maybe could be combined, what of 
> cause still would be the best solution. The due date for this is 
> Friday, April the 13th COB.
>
> If we still have two proposals, then the proposers should get a chance 
> to comment the analysis. This again should be a single document. Due 
> date for this is Wednesday, April the 18th COB.
>
> In the TC call at April the 23th, we may either vote on the 
> proposal(s), or agree to conduct an e-mail ballot. To give everyone a 
> fair chance to follow the discussions, a discussion of the list topic 
> that goes beyond the preparation of document's mentioned should be 
> avoided.
>
> If a TC member cannot meet one of the due date but wishes to submit a 
> document to the TC, then she or he should inform the TC as soon as 
> possible, but in any case before the due date. This information should 
> contain the date until the document will be submitted.
>
> We stay with this plan and schedule/roadmap, except that the TC 
> formally makes some other decision.
>
> I would like to propose that we formally agree on this procedure in 
> our con call on Monday.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael


-- 
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]