Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] PROPOSAL -- Name change for proposedTC

["Craig A. Eddy" <tyche@cox.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I disagree.

marbux wrote:
> PROBLEM STATEMENT
>
> The name for the proposed TC is currently proposed as "ODF
> Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance Technical Committee"
> ("OIIC TC")
>
> That is a mouthful unlikely to be understood by those who do not
> understand the technology and know what the acronym "ODF" means.
- -1
The personnel which would be at all interested in working with, or
observing the operation of the Technical Committee already know that
ODF stands for Open Document Format.  They are also aware of what a
Technical Committee does, at least in general.  "Interoperability and
Conformance" are merely descriptive.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> PROPOSAL
>
> I propose instead that the TC be named the "OpenDocument Exchange
> Formats Technical Committee ("ODEF TC").
- -1
This appears to be a transparent attempt to change the focus of the
work of the Technical Committee from determining whether the output of
OTHER applications is able to inter-operate and/or conform to the ODF
spec to changing ODF to conform to the other applications.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> JUSTIFICATION
>
> 1. By using "OpenDocument" rather than "ODF", the alphabet soup is
> removed from this existing proposed name and the relationship of this
> TC to the work of the ODF TC's work is more explicitly stated.
- -1
ODF is a well publicized standard, and the initials are generally known.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> 2. The term "exchange formats" encapsulates the range of work
> contemplated for this TC in terminology more easily understandable to
> far more people, yet still distinguishes this TC's name from the ODF
> TC's name. .
- -1
The purpose of the Technical Committee is to create a test, or series
of tests, to determine the ability of the output of various
applications to meet the specifications of ODF.  The Technical
Committee is not empowered to attempt to change ODF to "exchange" with
or conform to other document formats

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> 3. If this TC's profiles are faithful to the goal of interoperability,
> those profiles will eventually displace the work of the ODF TC in the
> market and become the new standard. At such time, those profiles will
> need a name to brand them separately from "ODF." The name I propose
> and its acronym ODEF fulfills that requirement.
- -1
This is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and involves
changing the Standard which has already been established and reversing
the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> 4. It is impossible for this TC's profiles to maintain compatability
> with the work of the ODF TC if the goals of interoperability and
> application-neutrality are to be fulfilled. All of the "may" and
> "should" clauses and the ocean of passive voice sentences in the ODF
> TC's work mask hard-coded programming decisions made in existing
> implementations. These areas of under-specification represent
> dependencies on non-interoperable implementations of  the ODF
> standard. There are also huge black holes in the ODF specification,
> such as the lack of an identified interoperability framework that
> specifies conformance requirements and application behavior necessary
> to achieve interoperability.
- -1
This is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and involves
changing the Standard which has already been established and reversing
the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> There is no way to avoid reprogramming of existing implementations if
> the goals of interoperability and application neutrality are to be
> fulfilled by this TC's work.  If this TC's work is to succeed, the
> application dependencies must be removed in the developed profiles and
> an application-neutral interoperability framework must be fully
> specified. The goals of interoperability and application neutrality
> necessitate a fork from the ODF standard that requries its own name.
- -1
This is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and involves
changing the Standard which has already been established and reversing
the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> 5. The name OpenDocument Exchange Formats differs from the name given
> to a very closely-related project under way conducted by European
> Union governments only by the lack of a space between the words "open"
> and "document" in the name I propose. This proposed TC is obviously
> intended to respond to the requirements established by the E.U.
> government IT departments and procurement officials participating in
> that effort. E.g., they required that profiles and conformity
> assessment procedures be developed and that a single standard be
> developed based on ODF that responds to the needs of all vendors.
> Rejection of OOXML was explicit. The importance of vendor-neutral
> interoperability was stressed in the requirements.
- -1
This is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and involves
changing the Standard which has already been established and reversing
the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> IBM and Sun, through the European Committtee for Interoperable
> Systems, instigated an antitrust investigation of Microsoft that has
> resulted in Microsoft bowing to the wishes of the E.U. government IT
> and procurement officials committing to development of native file
> support for ODF 1.1 in Office 2007, and joining the ODF TC to work on
> ODF 1.2. ODF 1.2 when adopted will be quite different from the current
> draft in order to remove interop barriers with Microsoft Office.
> Substantial reprogramming of both OOo and MS Office will be required.
- -1
Not proven.  Please supply evidence with specificity.

In addition, this is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and
involves changing the Standard which has already been established and
reversing the work that has already been done and is continuing to be
done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.


>
> The ODEF name I propose.is intended to establish this TC's work as
> responsive to the market requirements specified by E.U. government and
> the antitrust investigation's fruit, rather than to the requirements
> of the big vendors who created the interop mess in the first place.
- -1
This is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and involves
changing the Standard which has already been established and reversing
the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> Those who wish to thoroughly examine the requirements established by
> E.U. government for Open Document Exchange Formats can start on this
> page, which links all related materials
> <http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6474>. Those who wish only a
> quick overview may visit this page,
> <http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=27956>, and skim the eight
> slides used in Dr. Barbara Held's report to the plenary session. Dr.
> Held is the E.U. official with lead responsibility for coordinating
> the interoperable exchange of documents throughout all levels of E.U.
> governments.
- -1
Off topic

This is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and involves
changing the Standard which has already been established and reversing
the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> 6. This proposal in essence asks the big vendors to disclose whether
> this proposed TC or the ODF TC is the TC that will actually be working
> on responding to the interoperability requirements of E.U. government.
> There is an interoperability agenda that has not been disclosed by the
> big vendors and I wish to know whether this TC proposal is anything
> more than a smoke screen to distract attention from the TC where the
> big vendors are making the real interop decisions.
- -1
Off topic

This is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and involves
changing the Standard which has already been established and reversing
the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> What is the utility of this TC if the real Microsoft-Sun-IBM-Novell
> interop agreement is being negotiated on the ODF TC using ODF 1.2 as
> the document that records the agreement? Any earlier version of ODF
> will be obsoleted by that agreement because of the numerous, serious,
> and thoroughly documented interop barriers between the OOo code base
> and the code base of Microsoft Office that are embodied in the earlier
> versions of ODF.
- -1
Off topic

This is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and involves
changing the Standard which has already been established and reversing
the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.

>
> Why is this TC not a waste of everyone's time? I want full disclosure
> of the big vendors' interop agenda for ODF. I am not interested in
> being used as a pawn by the big vendors to distract public attention
> from the real negotiation.  Disclose the real interop agenda or stop
> wasting people's valuable time.
- -1
Off topic.  Allegation has no support.  Please supply evidence of
alleged "conspiracy".

This is outside the scope of the Technical Committee, and involves
changing the Standard which has already been established and reversing
the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.

No change is needed, necessary, or reasonable at this time.  Should a
change be needed, that would be up to Oasis and/or the Technical
Committee.
>
> As was said by E.U. DG Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes last week
> when she laid out the guidelines for the IBM-Sun-Microsoft negotiation
> of interoperability between their applications:
>
> "... standardisation agreements should be based on the merits of the
> technologies involved. Allowing companies to sit around a table and
> agree technical developments for their industry is not something that
> the competition rules would usually allow. So when it is allowed we
> have to look carefully at how it is done."
> <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/317&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en>.
>
> I also wish to "look carefully at how it is done." Which TC should I
> be watching, this one or the ODF TC? I have no interest in this
> proposed TC if the real interop decisions are going to be made on the
> ODF TC.  Disclose the real interop agenda, please.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Paul E. Merrell,, J.D. (Marbux)
>


I am
Craig A. Eddy (aka Tyche on websites, blogs and IRC)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIWX3DDOWu08UKbpURAgvuAKCCeVXrvXk3MRvLpiWhoJHtbckF7QCfcNND
YGYQ84HolJ/9TNzDPwUyQQE=
=m00g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----