I know we are not bound to a calendar date upon which to approve our committee draft specification of XLIFF 2.0. But I think there's no harm in playing with some numbers. I've publically stated my personal view that if we don’t have a draft completed in a year, I would (personally) consider that a setback.
So just for fun. Here are some numbers.
We have 27 proposed features in the wiki (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking). I estimate (best educated guess) that after all proposals are approved or rejected that we will need another 3 months to create/vote/pass the wording for the spec. That gives us 9 months to consider all of the proposals. And that gives us 18 meetings in 9 months. That means we would need to approve/reject at least 1.5 per meeting to realistically (in my opinion) hope to have a committee draft in one year.
As I said, this is just for fun. I am not meaning to suggest we should sacrifice good debate and consideration in order to hit a calendar date. And I also do not in any way wish to imply that we should not propose worthwhile features as they occur to us (also, we always have the option to id proposed features as 2.0 vs. candidate for 2.x).
But for me (just for me personally) I will keep this number in mind, and use it as a personal pace-motivator. And if I have items on the list that I am the champion for, I will consider using the time between meetings to start the conversation on my proposals.
Food for thought (nothing intended beyond that) . . .
Bryan Schnabel
Content Management Architect
Phone: 503.627.5282
www.tektronix.com
