xliff message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: Ballot on Feature Approval Procedure, XLIFF 2.0 program Charter Draft v0.4 committed to SVN
- From: Helena S Chapman <hchapman@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:51:02 -0400
I second.
Best regards,
Helena Shih Chapman
Globalization Technologies and Architecture
+1-720-396-6323 or T/L 938-6323
Waltham, Massachusetts
From:
"Rodolfo M. Raya"
<rmraya@maxprograms.com>
To:
<xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>,
"'Dr. David Filip'" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date:
10/05/2011 04:21 PM
Subject:
RE: [xliff]
Re: Ballot on Feature Approval Procedure, XLIFF 2.0 program Charter Draft
v0.4 committed to SVN
Sent by:
<xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi Bryan,
I formally propose that the
charter discussion happens only at SC level and then, when the charter
is ready, a ballot for approving it is created on Kavi.
Would someone please second
this proposal?
Best regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya
<rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Maxprograms
http://www.maxprograms.com
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Schnabel, Bryan S
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 4:49 PM
To: Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org; Dr. David Filip
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: Ballot on Feature Approval Procedure, XLIFF
2.0 program Charter Draft v0.4 committed to SVN
David and Yves,
Thank you for your wisdom
and energy on this. I've been a lurker on this thread. I very much value
the education I get from observing a debate between two brilliant thinkers.
My role as chair I think,
does not enable/anoint me to set policy/procedures anymore than any other
voting member of the TC. But I think my role does empower me to influence
the pace at which our TC progresses.
Toward that end, so far,
I've done some things. (1) Listen-to/hear the voices of those with a bent
for technical progress toward the XLIFF 2.0 specification and schema. I
put myself in that camp. I've tried to segregate the agendas to clear the
way for technical work, and I've tried to prioritize the technical work
above the other XLIFF business. And (2) I've endorsed, encouraged, and
joined the P & L SC. I am in this camp as well. My thinking is that
in an absence of documented, agreed upon, and enforced policy and procedures,
technical progress is burdened with waste, mis-starts, rework, disorganization,
etc. (drawing from my own experience).
In my mind, David and his
excellent SC members have already cleared the TC of much of the current
business, paving the way for less burdened meetings from a technical perspective
(granted it took a while, and a fair share of the TC's energy to sort out
the details).
I think the one remaining
item is the working charter. The question is, do we need to work on the
details of the charter in the TC? Or can we move the charter work to the
SC, have the debate there, and only bring the subject to the TC once a
vetted proposal is ready for ballot? I don't know the answer to this. But
I would surely cast my vote if somebody proposed this. And if the working
charter is already vetted and ready for ballot, I will be more than happy
to get a ballot going, between meetings.
I really think that once
the charter is in place, we will have a luxurious portion of each TC meeting
to devote to nothing but technical work. I look forward to this.
But let me please throw out
one last plea to the TC. When this day comes (and I think it will come
soon), let us *please* be ready to make good use of it. That is,
we've all expressed an appetite to get technical - let's be prepared to
do so. Let's do our share of off-line work toward the technical features/issues
that matter to use, and let's hit the ground running at the meetings. I
will follow Yves' excellent example on this, and try myself to be as active
as he is between meetings.
I will move us quickly to
the technical work portion of the agenda. I just ask that once we get there,
let's have disciplined technical work ready to act on.
Thanks,
Bryan
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 4:43 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: Ballot on Feature Approval Procedure, XLIFF
2.0 program Charter Draft v0.4 committed to SVN
Dear David,
I’m afraid I tend to
disagree with some of the things you wrote.
I think, ultimately,
people, not rules, stop “scope creep”.
I think end-users, not
self-imposed constraints, tell you if you failed or succeeded.
I think using the work
done before the 1st symposium is just fine, I’m just sad not
much has been added since.
I think delivering a
spec within Q1-12, if we continue to work the way we have, is very funny.
I think I should make
some efforts to accommodate people who see rules and procedures as an important
part of the work, as long as they make similar efforts in the other direction.
I think it’s fine for
us to disagree on the procedural aspects, as long as we end up agreeing
on the technical ones.
And finally I think I
should stop arguing about non-technical topics, open the wiki pages of
the features assigned to me and start outlining requirements and solutions;
so Rodolfo has some rough material for the draft when we get at that point.
Because we will get there, ...I think :)
Cheers,
-yves
From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 5:09 PM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff] Re: Ballot on Feature Approval Procedure, XLIFF
2.0 program Charter Draft v0.4 committed to SVN
Hi Yves, the good thing is that
we agree on moving on. The TC will choose from 4 options and it is well
so..
This discussion might be still
good to have as it reveals some important differences in opinions that
are perhaps good to elaborate on.
I think that the procedure is important
because it helps us put constraints onto the project. Without the constraints,
no project can be completed. A standards body obviously is not a project,
but its specifications are project deliverables. It might be OK for a standards
body to move very slow for a couple of years, as it sounds what is happening
to the previous spec out there. I agree with you that initiatives like
IN! are symptoms of the slow institutional development. Clearly, now come
the time when the TC must either deliver or fail, i.e. the TC must set
constraints to the project.
This procedure is only a small
part of the XLIFF 2.0 Charter effort and the goal of the Charter effort
is to put more and more stringent constraints onto the project, to ensure
that it can succeed at all. Without the constraints you would not know
if it succeeded, so it would actually fail.
You are trying to push a non-procedure
because you do not want to be hindered in technical work but this is exactly
the way to scope creep and hence the failure to deliver in historically
short timeframe.
Prison is one of our defenses against
scope creep and therefore extremely important and I pledge for honoring
the difference between "prison" and "under consideration".
Re your point that most of the
considered features were there before the 1st Symposium, I say it is OK,
many smart people were adding the features for a long time and the customer
call is not for a long tail of features but for a small truly interoperable
core. We must keep the spec small in order to be able to provide unambiguous
processing requirements for all the included features. I hope that this
will be greatly assisted by Andrew Pimlott who should join the TC very
soon.
In my view it is not intrinsically
good to bring every thinkable feature into the spec, I feel that the spec
can be only as good and elaborate as is our availability of appropriate
resources (i.e. mainly committee members). Good feature ideas will be inevitably
dropped if they cannot be properly elaborated with the momentum we have
succeeded to build by now. And I think it is not a small momentum for a
localisation standard, still we do not have and will not have either unlimited
resources or unlimited time to develop an ideal mother of all specs.
Features shelved in prison are
not inevitably dead, after their prison term they might still play an important
role in a 2.x module, who knows, but discarded features must not prevent
us from delivering a committee spec well within Q1 2012, otherwise we have
failed. P&L SC will do everything to push the spec through OASIS procedures
well within Q2 2012 and then we can celebrate :-)
After the procedure has been sorted
out I plan to put forward a ballot with this time constraint..
Best regards
dF
Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
mobile: +353-86-049-34-68
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:00, Yves
Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
wrote:
Hi David,
> I can add your proposal as the 4th option
> if you insist.
Yes, I would appreciate, thanks.
> Both 3. and 4. I would consider insufficient,
> as they would undermine the very reason for
> having the "discarded" or prison section; as
> you rightly pointed out in the TC discussion.
Well... that is my underlying reason
:)
I see the no fundamental difference between "discarded" and "under
consideration". They're just convenient labels to sort things out
a bit more. One should be able to take a feature from either sections to
"approved" with the ease.
The bottom line is that all that is relatively un-important (to me). Getting
those features into the specification is where I would rather spend time,
not in the "prison" section :)
Don't take me wrong: I have nothing against organizing things, having priorities,
processes, procedures, etc.
But we are now after the second XLIFF symposium, and a) we still have no
2.0 draft started, b) most of the features listed in our tracking pages
have been there long before the first symposium.
We shouldn't be surprised there are efforts like IN! that try to move forward:
we are not moving fast enough.
And please, understand that I'm really not criticizing anyone in particular:
I'm "part of the problem" like anyone in the TC, as Bryan remind
us often :)
We probably just need to spend more time in XLIFF work between calls to
make faster progress.
> Anyway, I trust that all pros and cons were
> sufficiently discussed and rather than lingering
> and trying to arrive at a consensus, we should
> decide via a ballot and move on.
+1 to that :)
Cheers,
-yves
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]