Re: [oic] Re: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TCADMIN-216 - 15-day Review Request for The State of ODF Interoperability Version 1.0 Committee Draft 05

[Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>]

Hi Rob,

If this is a second review, then why is there no revision history? It is - I'm guessing at least - different than the version submitted previously; otherwise it wouldn't be a second review. 

As far as the references section goes, yes - our fault for not catching it previously, but that doesn't mean that we should let specifications progress without resolving any previously-uncaught errors. While it may not seem important since there aren't any, our goal is for all OASIS specifications to have a consistent look and feel; anyone using those standards should feel comfortable knowing that certain information will be consistently located no matter which TC is producing the work. 

Regards,

Mary


On Aug 12, 2010, at 4:16 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Hi Kim,
> 
> This is the first version of this document, so there is no revision 
> history.  But I suppose we could just say "1.0 initial version" and that 
> might make some people happy.
> 
> And as our conformance clause says, there are no normative clauses or 
> references in this document.  But I suppose we could add an section that 
> says "There are no normative references" and that would make some people 
> happy.
> 
> Or maybe not.  It would certainly delay this going out for its 2nd public 
> review by another month.  That is for certain.
> 
> But I think the bigger point is this:  We already submitted this document 
> for quality check and it was approved.  It went out for public review.  We 
> addressed the comments received.  And now we're being given new quality 
> check items that were not raised by OASIS originally, nor were received 
> via public comments.  This is not good.
> 
> I think we need to acknowledge that the quality check done by TC Admins 
> will be imperfect, but there needs to be some cut-off point where we say, 
> "You had your chance, now it is time to move on".  Otherwise, what are you 
> going to do?  Review a Committee Specification and decide that we're not 
> following the latest template and send it back to a CD?  That would be 
> ridiculous.   The TC needs some certainty that once it has passed quality 
> check that it is safe to go forward, unless there are regressions 
> introduced by the TC. 
> 
> -Rob
> 
> Kim Goolsby <kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org> wrote on 08/12/2010 03:27:00 PM:
> 
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Please excuse my error below. I did not realize that a change-marked
>> copy was required for a 15-day review. Now I do.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Kim
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Kim Goolsby <kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org
>>> wrote:
>> Please make the following changes to this document:
>> 
>> 1. Please make sure 'View Changes' is turned off before submitting 
>> the document.
>> 
>> 2. Please add Appendix B. Revision History to the end of the spec.
>> 
>> 3. Please add sections for 'Normative' and 'Non-Normative 
>> References' per the template.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Kim
>> 
>> -- 
>> Kim Goolsby
>> Publications Specialist
>> OASIS Open: Advancing open standards for the information society
>> email: kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org 
>> web: www.oasis-open.org
>> phone: 1.734.223.6890
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Kim Goolsby
>> Publications Specialist
>> OASIS Open: Advancing open standards for the information society
>> email: kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org 
>> web: www.oasis-open.org
>> phone: 1.734.223.6890
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 
>