[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next
"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 12/17/2010 02:46:46 PM: > > I think there is another matter of importance to recognize here. > > The production of CSDs is cumulative, not modular. That is, every CSD that > is produced has to incorporate the (current form) of features in previous > drafts and be for all four parts of ODF x.y assuming the ODF 1.2 structure > is maintained. > Certainly, to the extent we remain as a single, multi-part standard, all parts need to go out for review together, even if any individual part has not changed. This is not a huge problem. It just is more work in putting together the review materials. > Furthermore, the cumulative (or even incremental-only) change tracking would > become nightmarish since, presumably, each CSD in the track model would > incorporate entire new features. > I don't see this as a particularly nightmarish. How is it different than what we just did to put together the review materials for CSD 06? Remember, each 15-day review is only incremental, showing changes back to the previous public review. We don't need to show all changes back to CSD 01 (or whatever our initial 30-day review version was). > I'm not sure how the subsequent public reviews in such a situation could be > reduced to 15 days, if we are grafting in feature modules at each cut. > The process says the review is for a "minimum of 15 days". So the TC could vote to hold a longer review if there were additional review time were required. > Perhaps one might do effected parts only in some Public Reviews, but at some > point we are back to having to do a full review series to put a set of > drafts on the Committee Specification and Standard track. > I think every public review will need to have the complete specification under review. > Maybe we need to take another look at modularization with supplements as > well as the handling of extensions and the prospective movement of > extensions from practice to standard. > I think modularization would improve things, but only if done right. It is the old analysis question: how do you maximize intra-module cohesion while at the same time reducing inter-module dependencies? Parts 2 and 3 are in relatively good shape. But Part 1 is still very monolithic. No matter what we do process-wise, an 850-page specification is going to be tough to edit, to review and to revise. I suspect that modularization will also help implementors. -Rob > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:27 > To: Patrick Durusau > Cc: Michael Brauer; OpenDocument Mailing List > Subject: Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next > > [ ... ] > > On the other hand, a CSD/Public review does have overhead, both in the > length of the review, but also on the administrative checks. Since the > initial review is the longer review (30-days), there is an advantage to > doing that as early as possible, to get that out of the way. Of course, > once you've done that you have the burden of highlighting changes in > future CSDs. But on balance I think we're better of to have a CSD/public > review early. > > [ ... ] >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]