OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: [tab] Re: [chairs] Re: Chairs: Requesting your feedback on comment resolution logs


Patrick,
I disagree strongly.
There is a big difference between mandating what is needed (necessary and acceptable) and insisting that there is only one way to do it. Being literate us one thing; having to learn the intricacies of a specific system is another.
If we have to wait for the 100% perfect system, then I think we'll be waiting awhile: if it hasn't appeared in the last decade, there's probably a good reason.

What is there about alternative approaches that is broken that you think needs fixing? Good enough is good enough

Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
www.peterfbrown.com
+1 310 694 2278 (USA)
+44 7913 046 997 (UK)
+32 472 027 811 (Rest of Europe)
Twitter @PensivePeter

Sent from my phone - Apologies for brevity and typos: it's hard writing on a moving planet

From: Patrick Durusau
Sent: 04-May-12 7:54
To: Robin Cover
Cc: OASIS TAB List; Chet Ensign; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [chairs] Re: [tab] Re: [chairs] Re: Chairs: Requesting your feedback on comment resolution logs

Robin,

Thanks!

The latest word is that an enhanced version of the BSI developed
software is underway but it isn't public at this point.

I wasn't suggesting it as one among many non-standard choices a TC can make.

Rather I was thinking that it be used at the "standard" way to display
comments/edits to drafts at OASIS.

TCs would be free to use spreadsheets, word processors, cigar boxes,
note cards or any other means they care to use in collecting comments
and editing their drafts.

However, the TC admin would accept only drafts that are submitted using
the "standard" mechanism, along with comments, etc.

Believing in freedom of choice, the TCs could do double the work or they
could choose to use the "standard" method.

TCs that want to use ODF (my first choice), DITA (other people's
choice), Word, etc. could do so.

But we all (me included) would have to use the standard means to submit
to the TC Admin.

A variation on "your mother doesn't work here." The TC Admin should not
be cleaning up after adults who are supposed to be computer literate.

The public, remember the public?, get a standard way to comment on and
to see their comments resolved.

Unless public comment and tracking of those comments isn't a goal. (I
withhold comment on that issue.)

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

PS: Any governments or government agencies interested in e-government
and transparency of the same should be interested in standard mechanisms
for development and comment on standards. Use your voices as OASIS
members to make that requirement known.

A crazy-quilt of methods for comments and tracking comments means a
greater burden on the public. Your public.



On 05/03/2012 12:38 AM, Robin Cover wrote:
> Here's something from W3C relevant to the email
> thread "your feedback on comment resolution logs"
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201204/threads.html#00026
> which partly fulfills requirements articulated by
> by Patrick Durusau.  At the same time it put the
> tune of Paul Simons into my brain "There Must Be
> 50 Ways to Leave Your (feedback on a spec)"
>
> ===============
> Context
> ===============
>
> I spotted a public "Call for Implementations" from
> W3C [1], where "Call for Implementation" typically
> implies advancement of a specification to the
> status of Candidate Recommendation [2], where:
>
> 1. W3C believes the technical report is stable and
>    appropriate for implementation (though it may
>    still change based on implementation experience).
>
> 2. The Working Group is not required to show that
>    a technical report has two independent and
>    interoperable implementations, but...
>    should include a report of present and expected
>    implementations as part of the request.
>
> 3. The Working Group may identify specific features
>    of the technical report as being "features at
>    risk" ... [and] after gathering implementation
>    experience, the Working Group may remove features
>    from the technical report that were identified
>    as being "at risk"...
>
> 4. An announced minimal duration of the "Call for
>    Implementation" period is designed to allow time
>    for comment, and should include the Working
>    Group's estimate of the time expected to gather
>    sufficient implementation data...
>
> =================================================
> Mechanics for feedback during the comment period
> =================================================
>
> In today's example, the "HTML5 Web Messaging"
> spec is advanced to CR [3] and provides three
> methods for public submission of comments, depending
> upon user preferences:
>
> * using the public Issue Tracking Service (Bugzilla),
>   which supports tracking of comments made on the
>   specification [4]
>
> * entering Feedback Comments directly into the
>   document being reviewed, in an embedded web form
>
> * using email to send feedback to the public
>   archived lists
>
> Users who provide public comment can arrange
> to receive notifications of changes to the
> specification using either a Commit-Watchers
> mailing list (complete source diffs) or
> via the browsable version-control record of
> all changes resulting from the feedback sent
> during the "Call for Implementation" period.
>
> Just FYI, as we are collecting ideas for future
> improvements to the OASIS TCs' public comment
> facility.
>
> - Robin
>
> [1] CFI text: http://www.w3.org/News/2012#entry-9438
>
> [2] W3C Process Document, 7.4.3 Call for Implementations
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi
> Candidate Recommendation
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#RecsCR
>
> [3] example: HTML5 Web Messaging
>     W3C Candidate Recommendation 01 May 2012
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-webmessaging-20120501/
>
> [4] W3C Bug / Issue Tracking Service
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi
>
>


--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
OASIS Technical Advisory Board (TAB) - member

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]