[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oic] Re: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TCADMIN-216 -15-day Review Request for The State of ODF Interoperability Version 1.0Committee Draft 05
LOL. I thought it was a lawyer. It's close to the requirement that you must have a Conformance section, even if it's to explicitly state that you have no conformance requirements. Most TCs list every working draft; beyond that some will just put a general note where others will put a very detailed list of changes. We try not to police at too fine a level of granularity :) On the other hand, we will have the new TC Process and the non-standards track templates in effect come 15 October. I'm guessing that future editions of this document may be better served by those templates. And since you brought it up, *ahem*, if you have any suggestions/ideas/samples of other types of templates you'd like to see, please forward to me! Thanks, Mary -----Original Message----- From: <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:50:54 -0400 To: Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> Cc: Kim Goolsby <kim.goolsby@oasis-open.org>, <oic@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: 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 >Well, I certainly appreciate the need to prevent someone from being >confused about where to not find the normative references we don't have. >After all, IBM invented the phrase "This page intentionally left blank" >in >our printed documentation. > >What is the level of granularity we need on the revision history? Every >CD? Or just public review drafts? > >-Rob > >Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> wrote on 08/12/2010 04:33:49 PM: > >> >> 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 > >> > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]