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

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

> 
> I'm sorry. In which case I'd like the TC to be rechartered to work
'the next'
> version of ODF, as and when it is an Oasis standard and not before.
> 

Could you suggest some reasons why the proposed TC
would not want to have a charter that takes into account the ODF 1.2 work
which is already nearing completion?  Is there a particular advantage
to ignoring this work?

> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> No. I never mentioned profiles.
> I caveated it to 'pixel perfect' as per previous discussions on this
list.
> 

I never said that you mentioned profiles.  I
said that your proposed restriction on testing application rendering (pixel
perfection) impinged on a proposal made by another member of this discussion
list who asked for the proposed TC to consider an ODF/Web profile.  Remember
scope cuts across all deliverables.


> >
> >> 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?
> 
> No. I am objecting to scoping the TC to work on any and all versions
> of ODF ad infinitum  into the future.
> 

It is common language in OASIS TC charters to say
something like "The TC will develop and maintain XXX", where
"maintain" implies future updates, revisions, etc.  I'd
like to hear your argument for why the proposed OIIC TC should be an exception
to that practice.  Remember, scope does not oblige us to work on "all
versions of ODF ad infinitum  into the future", but it does permit
the TC to choose to work on the interoperability of any ODF release they
decide to.  What is your objection to letting the people who will
do the work, decide which versions of ODF are most relevant to that work?

In general I'd advise discussion participants to focus
on things that they want added to the charter which they personally would
participate in the development of.  The recent focus on trying to
eliminate things from the charter that others want to work on is procedurally
ineffective and will accomplish nothing, since those who want to do these
things have every ability under OASIS rules to go forward and modify the
proposed charter to add these items back. This discussion list does not
have the last word.  Any belief to the contrary is a misconception.

Good, well-reasoned arguments are always welcome.
 But statements of "No!",  "-10", or "guaranteed
to fail" are a waste of breath.  Hyperbole has no stature here.
 Only persuasion does.


-Rob