Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] My perspective. display perferct?

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
wrote on 07/01/2008 10:16:28 AM:

> 2008/7/1  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> I think I'm doing a Rob Weir.
> >>
> >> Proposal for consensus: Please respond if you support it.
> >>
> >> "There will be no deliverable addressing the ideas of
'pixel perfect' as
> >> used on this list. "
> >>
> >> Please respond or you'll have one mans version of consensus.
> >>
> >> worksforme (ODF != PDF)
> >>
> >
> > I would not put a restriction in the charter against such a deliverable.
> >  But I'd agree that we have no basis for including in such
a deliverable at
> > present.
> >
> > I think we will want the charter will be written broadly enough
to cover
> > current and future versions of ODF.  We cannot know what
features will be
> > in, say ODF 2.0.
> 
> -10
> 
> Absolutely disagree. If you want to scope the TC work for the next
123
> versions of ODF, then ..... get IBM to do it.
> 

No one suggested the next 123 versions of ODF.  But
I am suggesting, since we have already discussed a web profile as a deliverable
of the proposed TC, that the TC's scope at least provide for the likelihood
that a web profile would have a more defined rendering model.   The
charter should be coherent, and the scope broad enough to cover the deliverables
it lists.

> That is not workable at all.
> 
> The TC needs something tangible to work with.
> If future versions of ODF change then the TC will need re-chartering
to
> cater for that.
> 

We can not recharter to broaden scope.  That
would require creating a new TC.  OASIS rules. 

Remember, you were suggesting a very tangible restriction,
that would have restricted us from following through on someone else's
proposed deliverable, namely a web profile.  This is why we need one
person to put together a coherent complete draft of the charter, rather
than argue back and forth your insular points.

> Otherwise they have an open ended ticket guaranteed
 to fail.

So, are you saying that if I don't put in exactly
the words that you specify, that we are guaranteed to fail?  Where
have I heard that argument before?

> No Rob.
> 
> You've seen as big a consensus as we've had (Paul excepted).
> 
> If you won't act on that then please say so
> 

As I stated earlier, I will put together a complete,
coherent proposed charter and we can take it from there.  I will propose
resolution of contradictory proposals at my discretion.  I consider
your proposal to contradict the proposal for a ODF web profile.  

Consensus is the frosting on the cake, but the rules
only require subscription of 5 OASIS members (from three different OASIS
member organizations) to create a new TC. If 5 such members agree with
my charter, with your charter, with anyone else's charter, then they have
the right to move forward with it. 

It should be noted that there are far more people
arguing on the list than have indicated a willingness to participate on
the actual TC.  And there are many people who will be participating
on the TC who are currently lurking on the list.  I am mindful of
the arithmetic here.

-Rob