Re: [office] Re: ODF future versions to JTC1

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Rob,

A couple of quick points.

First, you say there is  "no consensus on the TC to move ODF 1.1 forward 
to JTC1."

The more correct statement is that the question has never been formally 
asked of the TC.

So what you say is literally true, but perhaps unintentionally 
misleading to those outside the TC.

In the absence of the question being asked, there could be no indication 
of a consensus or lack of one on this issue.

I suggest we remedy that situation this coming Monday, January 11, 2010.

More to the point, the question is one of who the "customer" is in this 
situation. It isn't members of the TC or even implementers of ODF in 
various versions. The "customer" in this case *is* JTC1.

Is there some reason why you disagree on that point? If there is I would 
like to have it out in the open so we can discuss it.

If, as I suspect is the case, JTC1 is the customer in this case, the 
customer have voiced an interest in a particular version of ODF. For 
reasons best known to it. Those may be compelling or silly reasons in 
the view of some but the fact remains those are *their* reasons and they 
are entitled to them.

I have never heard of a supplier arguing with a customer about their 
reasons for wanting a particular service or product. It seems unnatural.

It is true that I will have to divert some cycles from the current work 
on OpenFormula to prepare the necessary diff against ISO 26300 and 
obviously a clean copy that everyone will pretend is simply for 
convenience but the sooner I get that done, the sooner we can lay your 
time concerns to rest.

Until the number of comments on ODF 1.2 is known and we can estimate the 
time for processing them, I think any time calculations are premature 
with regard to processing of ODF 1.1 in ISO and its relationship to ODF 
1.2.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>
> We've been going over the timeline on the TC for this kind of activity.  I 
> agree that in principle we like the idea of 1.1 being approved by JTC1. 
> But we are having difficulties making a schedule that works out.
>
> The essential problem is that it looks very much like ODF 1.2 would 
> overtake an ODF 1.1 amendment and they would issue at essentially the same 
> time.  The nuance is that the PAS process is an accelerated ballot process 
> in JTC1, while an amendment is a "slow-track" procedure.  So if you add up 
> the processing steps for approving an amendment you find that they exceed 
> the time needed to approve a PAS. 
>
> I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be to anyone's benefit to have 
> three different ISO ODF standards in a 6 month span: 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2.  It 
> would certainly cause confusion among adopters.
>
> We might also observe the spirit of JTC1 Directives 12.2.1:
>
> "The social and economic long-term benefits of an IS should justify the 
> total cost of preparing, adopting and maintaining the standard. The 
> technical consideration should demonstrate that the proposed standard is 
> technically feasible and timely and that it is not likely to be made 
> obsolete quickly by advancing technology or to inhibit the benefits of 
> technology to users."
>
> I'd also note that even with a couple of NB dissenting, the OASIS PAS 
> Submittor status would still be approved, as it was before.  So I'd urge 
> not committing too much, and especially committing something that delays 
> ODF 1.2, does not benefit ODF adopters and in fact could very well confuse 
> them.  If there are concerns in this area we should be selling the view 
> that ODF 1.2 is out for public review in OASIS and will be submitted 
> shortly after approval to JTC1 under the PAS procedures, where it will 
> contain all the desired features of ODF 1.1, plus addition features which 
> ODF implementers and users have asked for.
>
> In any case, there is no consensus on the TC to move ODF 1.1 forward to 
> JTC1, although we continue to discuss.  Of course, OASIS has the ability 
> to act unilaterally on this, but I'd urge you to carefully consider the 
> timetable for such an amendment activity and the detrimental affect it 
> will likely have on ODF if this is done.  I shared additional concerns in 
> this regard in a note to you and Laurent last December.
>
> So if we need to say something regarding ODF 1.1, could we frame it as a 
> commitment to investigate and to deliver it "if at all feasible, 
> considering as well the spirit of JTC1 Directives 12.2.1"?  I'd rather not 
> get into a situation where ODF 1.1 comes out after (or very shortly 
> before) ODF 1.2 is approved.  If we want we could initiative an 
> informative ballot or meeting vote in JTC1 asking pointedly, "Would you 
> rather have ODF 1.2 come out by date X?  Or have ODF 1.2 be delayed and 
> have ODF 1.1 come out first, followed 3 months later by ODF 1.2, which 
> will cancel and replace ODF 1.0/1.1?"  I think it is obvious what the 
> results of such a ballot would be, and that would give us clearance.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> clark.jbc@gmail.com wrote on 01/07/2010 04:05:11 AM:
>
>   
>> From:
>>
>> James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
>>
>> To:
>>
>> office <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>
>> Cc:
>>
>> Michael Brauer <Michael.Brauer@sun.com>, robert_weir 
>> <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>, Laurent Liscia <laurent.liscia@oasis-
>> open.org>, Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
>>
>> Date:
>>
>> 01/07/2010 04:17 AM
>>
>> Subject:
>>
>> Re: ODF future versions to JTC1
>>
>> Sent by:
>>
>> clark.jbc@gmail.com
>>
>> Happy new year, all.  This follows up on our conversation at the TC's
>> last meeting about ODF v1.1 and JTC1, and later correspondence.
>>
>> As we discussed last time, OASIS must now apply for re-certification
>> as a PAS submitter.  In our last application, a few years ago, several
>> P-members (nations) voted against OASIS, saying that they believed
>> that OASIS and the TC were not responsive (as of 2007), in sending
>> updates to ODF to JTC1, after the completion of the original approval
>> of the PAS v1.0 2d ed. as ISO/IEC 26300 (2006).
>>
>> As we discussed last year, we worked in 2008 to negotiate better
>> mutual expectations with JTC1.  These included statements issued from
>> JTC1 and SC34, which you have seen, and also the changes made by our
>> Board of Directors to our own submissions policy, particularly Section
>> 5(b) here:  
>>     
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php#submitwork
>   
>> The policy encourages us to make sure that, once we have a jointly
>> approved specification, we keep our promises to keep the other party
>> current.
>>
>> At the TC's last teleconference, I expressed concern that the TC
>> support our long-overdue plan to keep JTC1 up to date with us, by
>> making v1.1 available to JTC1 in some form -- before we complete our
>> PAS renewal candidacy (1st quarter 2010) or submit ODF v1.2.
>>
>> We have an application ready to send to JTC1 for OASIS PAS status
>> renewal, and it's due now.  Confirming our plans for v1.1 is part of
>> what's needed to complete it convincingly.   I wish to include a
>> statement that the TC has committed to make v1.1 available to JTC1
>> promptly, in some reasonable form.  (See below.)  That did seem to be
>> the sense of the committee, at our last meeting.  To address Michael's
>> questions:
>>
>>     
>>>  1. It is my understanding that ODF 1.1 would become an
>>> amendment of ISO/IEC 26300. What would be submitted
>>> from OASIS to JTC1 in that case is not ODF 1.1 itself, but
>>> a diff between ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.0 2nd edition. Is that
>>> correct?
>>>       
>> Yes, that's how Patrick Durusau and I read the rules, as discussed
>> last time.  Upon approval, the 2007 v1.1 would become an amendment to
>> 26300(2006), not a new 26300(2010).  As a matter of presentation
>> style, we probably also can & should send a nonnormative full copy of
>> v1.1 for information.
>>
>>     
>>> 2. Does this require an "OASIS-organized public interoperability
>>> demonstration" as described in item 1(c) of liaison policy?
>>>       
>> I believe so, but I believe it can be waived by the Board, and in
>> light of the "amendment" treatment to address this left-over lag from
>> 2007, I think we should ask them to do so.  Any other views?
>>
>>     
>>> 3. At the time we prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition in response to comments
>>> attached to the ISO/IEC 26300 ballot where was no notion of an
>>> "OASIS errata" existing. We therefore prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition
>>> (rather than an errata). ODF 1.0 2nd edition went through a public 
>>>       
> review
>   
>>> and was approved as Committee Specification. Can we consider it to be
>>> equivalent to an approved OASIS errata?
>>>       
>> I believe so.  Our "Approved Errata" rule came after, and mostly was
>> modeled on, the "second edition" process we used with ODF.  And we
>> acted consistently with that position, by sending it (2d ed.) back to
>> JTC1 as an updated approved submission.
>>
>>     
>>> 4. To prepare diffs between ODF 1.0 and 1.1 we may have to prepare
>>> specification documents that have the erratas applied. If we prepare a 
>>>       
> new
>   
>>> specification document by applying approved erratas to an approved
>>> specification (let's say an ODF 1.0 third edition by applying
>>> ODF 1.0 errata 01 to ODF 1.0 second edition), does that specification
>>> document require a public review and/or ballot?
>>>       
>> A change to the spec, under OASIS TC Process rules, always would
>> require a re-approval process, yes.  Either as new Approved Errata or
>> a new OASIS Standard.  This is why, in my view, the simpler approach,
>> as we discussed at the last meeting, would be to submit the 2007
>> version of v1.1 (already approved), not updated, and represented
>> definitively as a diff
>>
>> This would give JTC1 a v1.1 (2007) that matches our v1.1 (2007). We
>> can and should send the subsequent errata, also ... but that's an
>> ongoing process, separately, and mostly will also be rolled up  into
>> v1.2 as I understand it.  So there is no rule requiring that we send
>> them at the same time.  Our problem here, in terms of release timing
>> and politics both, is that to JTC1's eye, we are 2.5 years late in
>> sending over v1.1.
>>
>> In our imminent request for OASIS PAS renewal, I would like to include
>> a sentence, based on our last meeting and any feedback here, that
>> acknowledges our good faith efforts, along these lines:
>>
>> "OASIS policy supports keeping shared specifications synchronized, by
>> providing to JTC1 the future finally-approved versions of
>> previously-approved standards.  OASIS intends to submit the last
>> (v1.1) version of ODF, probably as an amendment now that we have
>> guidance regarding its formatting, and also, when it is completed, the
>> major revision v1.2 expected to be approved later in 2010."
>>
>> Comments on that proposed statement, or any of the other points above,
>> are welcome.   Thanks as always for all of your work.  We're looking
>> forward with enthusiasm to getting on with v1.2 too.  Best regards.
>> Jamie
>>
>> ~ James Bryce Clark
>> ~ General Counsel, OASIS
>> ~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
>>     
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 
>
>
>   

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)