[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]