Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] My perspective

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

I believe that there may be a third alternative to the problem.  Have end-users as a part of the TC in one way or another, but definitely as having a voice in what goes on.  An end user is not a neutral body, nor is an end user an implementer with it's own set of priorities.  An end user is the one who has to struggle to make something work, sometimes in ways that it was never designed to work, in order to meet deadlines or because the boss told him to, or any one of a number of different excuses.  Their only agenda is to get the job done, and (from my own experiences) try to do it without turning the air around them blue.

Craig
Tyche

Peter Dolding wrote:

e7d8f83e0806301456k74d4773dpc5fca121c2fbe17c@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:56 PM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:

It is a balancing act.  In a sense, the ODF TC can define conformance
however it wants.  We can have a very loose definition that makes many
applications conformant.  Or we can have a very strict definition that no
existing ODF application can pass.  I don't think it makes sense to define
conformance for ODF to be such that only heavy-weight, traditional desktop
editors can claim conformance.  Doing so would risk leaving out the most
interesting and vibrant part of the market today.

    

This is exactly why I said TC should not be headed by implementers.
But by neutral organization.    We cannot care if everyone fails.
Look at the html acid tests when they were released not one rendering
engine passed.