RE: [office] The Phantom Proposals

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Hi Doug, If you agree with the general outline of the events as I 
described them, you might want to revisit your blog entry of May 13th, 
where you write:

"We then continued submitting proposed solutions to specific 
interoperability issues, and by the time proposals for ODF 1.2 were cut 
off in December, we had submitted 15 proposals for consideration.  The TC 
voted on what to include in version 1.2, and none of the proposals we had 
submitted made it into ODF 1.2. "

What you wrote there is 100% factually accurate, I believe, but could very 
easily be misconstrued, especially since it fails to mention that the 
proposals were effectively voluntarily withdrawn prior to the vote.  I 
think that if that point is clarified, this would stop the 
misunderstanding from propagating further.  Or maybe it wouldn't.  I don't 
know.  Things like this develop a life of their own sometimes.

Thanks,

-Rob


Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> wrote on 05/19/2009 04:52:51 PM:


> 
> Rob, I appreciate your eagerness to clarify the public record and 
> get the facts correct.
> 
> Can you please provide a link to whatever misrepresentation you are 
> trying to correct?
> 
> Thanks,
> Doug
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:43 PM
> To: Carol Geyer; Mary McRae
> Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [office] The Phantom Proposals
> 
> Hi Carol and Mary (and FYI, for the ODF TC members, who all already know 

> this),
> 
> I'm starting to here a claim that the ODF TC rejected "15 proposals" 
made 
> by Microsoft to improve interoperability.  "IBM and Sun voted them down" 

> is how I hear it phrased.  Just in case you get any inquiries on this, I 

> would like to draw your attention to the TC's record, which does not 
> substantiate the claim. 
> 
> By last November, the ODF TC had completed the technical features it had 

> initially set out to do for ODF 1.2: metadata, accessibility, formula 
and 
> database.  We had completed our goals.  But we were still tracking 50 or 

> so miscellaneous member proposals on our wiki, and this number was 
> increasing.  You can see the list of proposals on the wiki here:
> 
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/List_of_Proposals
> 
> On November 24th, by decision of the TC, with no objections, we agreed 
to 
> limit the number of additional proposals we would consider for ODF 1.2. 
> You can see the agreement in the meeting minutes here:
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200811/msg00124.html
> 
> On December 8th, again without objection, the TC agreed to have a vote 
on 
> which of the remaining member proposals would be considered for ODF 1.2.
> 
> This agreement is in the minutes here: 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00055.html
> 
> You can see that step #4 in the minutes called for members to reiterate 
> their proposals if they wished to have them included in the ballot. 
> 
> The list of reiterated proposals is listed here:
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00089.html
> 
> Michael sent a note to make sure that this list was not lacking any 
> proposal.  No errors in that list were reported.
> 
> We voted on the list and the results are here:
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00156.html
> 
> All eligible TC members voted.
> 
> So, although it may be cleverly stated that "None of Microsoft's 
> interoperability proposals were accepted" this is solely because the TC 
> members from Microsoft did not reiterate their proposals and in effect 
> withdrew them from consideration.  I remember the call distinctly, where 

> they said they did so because they did not want to slow down ODF 1.2.
> 
> I want to make sure that the record is crystal clear in this regard, 
since 
> statements are being made, and actions attributed to members of this TC, 

> which are false, misleading and reflect poorly on OASIS, this TC, our 
work 
> and our decision making process. I don't think any of us want to see 
that 
> happen.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>