Re: [office] Please read: ODF 1.2 process proposal

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

Dear TC members,

I would like to provide a few clarifications for the proposal:

- It currently applies to all three parts of the specification, that is, 
also the main part (1) as well as to the formula and package parts.
- It shall not apply to feedback we receive from the a11y SC, or the 
correction of defects we find during a public review or a review by a TC 
member.
- It does not apply to items that are required to meet the requirements 
of the OASIS TC process.
- Item 7 should be removed. I wanted to clarify by this that the call of 
January, the 12th is the last one for which a ballot may be requested, 
but this is covered already by the previous item 6.
- There will be no automatic consideration of items that have been 
requested in the Wiki. There was so much confusion regarding the page 
that we should have a fresh start.
- As soon as the ODF 1.2 specifications are complete we may want to 
approve them as Committee Drafts, and may based on that plan the further 
steps required to advance the Committee Drafts to an OASIS Standard.

If you have any questions or amendments regarding the proposal then 
please don't hesitate to send them to the list, so that we may address 
them before or in the call on Monday. I believe it would be good if we 
in the call on Monday could agree on a specific way how to move forward, 
which may be this proposal or an amended one. This would allow us to 
spend the rest of this year and the first weeks of the next one with 
actually discussing and approving proposals, and would further give us a 
clear perspective regarding ODF 1.2 before the holiday break.

Thank you and best regards

Michael


On 12/04/08 16:48, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
> Dear TC members,
> 
> as discussed, here is my proposal how to proceed with the completion of
> ODF 1.2. The proposal is actually at the end of this mail. If you are
> only interested in the proposal itself you can skip the introduction.
> 
> Before providing the proposal itself, I would like to provide some
> details about the current status, and also some kind of outlook
> regarding the development and schedule of future ODF versions which may
> help to understand the proposal itself.
> 
> 
> Introduction
> ------------
> 
> - When we started the work on ODF 1.2, we identified a few main topics
> to work on. These were Formulas, Metadata, Presentation Tables, Data
> Base Front End formats and I think also Digital Signatures. All these
> are completed (with the exception of processing some feedback we
> received and some pure editorial work).
> - The last time we discussed the schedule for ODF 1.2 we were assuming
> that ODF 1.2 gets an OASIS standard September 2008. We are at least 6
> months behind that already (the public review and OASIS standard ballot
> take 4 months at least), so it seems to be required to take some
> action to not loose track of our schedule entirely.
> - As of today we have 47 proposals in the Wiki. If we assume that we
> need 10 minutes for each proposals for discussion and another 5 for a
> ballot, and if we assume that we have 45 minutes in a TC call for
> proposals available (what is far too optimistic), then it would take us
> 18 TC calls to process the proposals. That is about 5 months. If we add
> the 4 months that are required as minimum for a public review and an
> OASIS standard ballot, ODF 1.2 would be an OASIS standard in September
> 2009 earliest. Given that we have additional tasks on the agenda of the
> TC calls, a more realistic date may be Spring 2010.
> - The number of proposals we have approved for ODF 1.2 is about 80. The
> number of open proposals therefore is more than the half of what we had
> for ODF 1.2, and seems itself to be sufficient material for a next ODF
> version.
> - We have not planned a schedule for a post-ODF-1.2 version, but of
> cause, we may agree a schedule for this version where we deliver it not
> too far after ODF 1.2. That is in our hands. My proposal here would be
> that we introduce a so called train model. In a train model we would
> have fixed dates where we deliver specifications, and we would include
> into these specifications what is ready by that date. We may for
> instance decide to have committee drafts every three or six months,
> which always should contain all proposals that have been agreed until
> when. We may then decide for each of the committee drafts whether we
> want to advance it to a committee specification, or even an OASIS
> standard. We should discuss this separately. What is essential
> for the discussion about the ODF 1.2 completion is only that proposals 
> that don't get into ODF 1.2 are not lost. As soon as ODF 1.2 is 
> complete, we can and should take any action that is required to get the 
> remaining proposals into an ODF specification, too.
> 
> Proposal
> --------
> 
> Based on this, I would like to ask all TC members to re-consider if
> their proposals are essential for ODF 1.2. We may be capable of
> discussing maybe 4 or 5 without further delaying ODF 1.2 (or taking
> other actions as outlined below), but not 47. Some (informal) guideline
> whether a proposal is essential may be whether it resolves an issue we
> introduced with ODF 1.2. If that is the case, then the proposal may be
> essential for ODF 1.2. If that is not the case, then the proposal still
> may be important, but it may also be okay if it is included in the next
> ODF version only.
> 
> When requesting that a proposal is considered for ODF 1.2, please
> consider also that each proposal either means a delay in ODF 1.2, or
> means that there is less time to discuss proposals, or that we need
> additional calls, or that other proposals (either from yourself or other
> TC members) cannot be considered. I don't want to propose at this stage
> any rules how many proposals a TC member is allowed to request. But if
> each TC member who has open proposals at the moments would not request
> more than one, or two as a maximum, then this may result in a number of
> proposals which we may be able to discuss and agree on in the next few
> weeks.
> 
> 
> Having all that said, here is what I would like to propose. This
> proposal is based on the assumption that there are about 5 ODF 1.2
> proposals remaining. If there are more, then we we need to take some
> more actions as included in the proposal.
> 
> 1. TC members can continue to make proposals according to our standing
> rule, regardless whether these are for ODF 1.2 or a later version. That
> is, these rules amend the proposal standing rule, but they do not
> replace it.
> 
> 2. Within TC calls, the discussion of proposals that are not for ODF 1.2
> is deferred until all parts of the ODF 1.2 specification are submitted
> for public review.
> 
> 3. TC members can combine proposals for discussion and approval. These
> may remain separate entries in the Wiki, but they would be treated like
> a single proposal in the TC proposal process. This in particular means
> that the total discussion time of item 5 applies to the combined
> proposal, and not to the individual ones, and that there will be a
> single vote for the combined proposal only.
> 
> 4. TC members can indicate their wish to get a proposal included into
> ODF 1.2 by sending an e-mail to the TC's mailing list. A formal proposal
> must exist at this time. The proposal does not have to be complete by
> that time.
> 
> *The latest date by which such request can be made is December, 10th.*
> 
> *The ODF 1.2 Wiki page is considered to be obsolete. Proposals must be
> re-requested for inclusion in ODF 1.2 by e-mail.*
> 
> 5. The total discussion time per proposal will be limited to 10 minutes.
> That is, TC members can request one 10 minute discussion, but also, for
> instance, two times a 5 minute discussion. TC members are encouraged to
> discuss proposals on the mailing list in the first place.
> 
> 
> 6. *The last date by which a vote for a proposal can be requested is
> January, the 7th.* Please note that according to our standing rule, the
> proposal has to be discusses previously.
> 
> The following requirements must be met before a vote on the proposal can
> be requested.
> - The proposal contains the exact text that has to be added or changed
> in the specification, including the affected sections.
> - The proposal contains the requested schema changes, if necessary.
> - The proposal is based on ODF 1.2 draft 7-11, or a later draft.
> - A copy of the proposal does exist in the TC's document repository, or
> on the TC's mailing list (this is required by the standing rule).
> The TC shall not approve a proposal that does not meet these requirements.
> 
> 7. *The last TC call in which votes regarding ODF 1.2 proposals are
> conducted is January, the 12th 2009.*
> 
> 8. If more than 5 proposals are requested for inclusion into ODF 1.2,
> then the TC will decide on one or more of the following options in its
> call on December, the 15th.
> a) The number of proposals per TC member is limited to a to be decided
> number.
> b) The discussion time per proposal is further restricted.
> c) Additional calls are scheduled.
> d) The dates of items 5 and 6 are adapted.
> e) It is agreed that none of the requested proposals is included into
> ODF 1.2.
> 
> 9. A ballot regarding these rules is conducted in the call on December,
> the 8th. The rules may be amended by a TC vote on December, the 15th.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Michael
> 


-- 
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