[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming
I agree completely with you. Strike my suggestion, and count me as fully behind the original wording. -- Don On 10/20/2010 10:04 PM, Jang F.M. Graat wrote: > Hello Don, > > Adding the word "necessarily" actually makes people feel it IS some > sort of guidance. Stating something is not a reliable guide does not > state is is NOT the direction DITA will be moving in, nor does it > state that it IS. It simply states that people should not build their > future on the info in the document, and that seems to be exactly what > we're trying to express in that particular disclaimer. So I would not > add "necessarily". > > Jang F.M. Graat > Traveling philosopher > http://www.jang.nl > > On 20 okt 2010, at 20:56, Don Day (LbW) wrote: > >> Jang, you have eloquently expressed the unease I felt about the >> course of the discussion. I like your minimalist approach--it says >> what it needs to say while leaving the responsibility for how the >> information is used up to the user without discouraging their >> interest in the potential of the exploratory work. I endorse this >> approach. I might suggest only the consideration of adding a word >> that adds a bit of length to the leash: "It is not *necessarily* a >> reliable guide..." >> -- >> Don Day >> Chair, OASIS DITA TC >> >> >> On 10/20/2010 1:40 PM, Jang F.M. Graat wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> After listening / reading quietly for over a year, here's my first 2 >>> cents, about the disclaimer discussion: >>> >>> Being a minimalist at heart, I would use fewer words and rephrase >>> the disclaimer as follows: >>> >>> "This document reflects exploratory work. It is not a reliable guide >>> on the future direction of DITA. It should not be taken as guidance >>> for using DITA or for developing DITA tools." >>> >>> The fact that it is work by a subcommittee is irrelevant, as >>> exploratory papers may also be produced by the TC as a whole, right >>> ? So leaving out the reference to the subcommittee makes the >>> statement useful for any exploratory document that might emerge out >>> of the DITA TC community. Also, the fact that it is not endorsed or >>> approved by the TC is irrelevant, as that is not the nature of >>> exploratory documents. They are meant to be input for discussions, >>> not proposals to be approved. Each document will have some reference >>> to the authorship, which may be an individual TC or SC member or an >>> SC or even the TC as a whole. It can still be exploratory, and >>> should not be taken as definitive. That is all we're trying to >>> state. So leave out all the redundant and irrelevant information. >>> >>> Jang F.M. Graat >>> Travelling philosopher >>> www.jang.nl >>> >>> >>> On 20 okt 2010, at 18:23, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote: >>> >>>> Re the added phrase: >>>> >>>>> and is not endorsed by the DITA Technical Committee as a whole >>>> >>>> We don't want it to sound like the TC disapproves of this work (or >>>> even >>>> of SC work in general). How about something like "has not yet been >>>> taken >>>> up as work of the Technical Committee as a whole"? That might look >>>> like >>>> this: >>>> >>>> "Because this document reflects exploratory work by a subcommittee >>>> of the DITA Technical Committee, which has not yet been taken up >>>> as work of the Technical Committee as a whole, it is not a reliable >>>> guide as to the future direction of DITA, and should not be taken >>>> as guidance for using DITA or for developing DITA tools." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:01 AM >>>> To: Su-Laine Yeo >>>> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org >>>> Subject: RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds good to me. I'll add a quick thought for Michael B's >>>> question: >>>> >>>> > - refrain from presenting subcommittee work as >>>> an official OASIS >>>> >TC position in a public forum (webinar, conference, white >>>> paper, etc) >>>> > >>>> >I still need clarification on the second issue, as my >>>> understanding may >>>> >allow more exposure of the subcommittee work than the TC would >>>> like. >>>> >>>> I think the key phrase there is "as an official TC position". If >>>> it's presented as exploratory work to solicit feedback, I personally >>>> don't see any problem with that. But if it's presented as established >>>> strategy or direction, that would be dangerously misleading. >>>> >>>> Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) >>>> Lead IBM DITA Architect >>>> mpriestl@ca.ibm.com >>>> http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 <http://dita.xml.org/blog/25> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: "Su-Laine Yeo" <su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com> >>>> To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>> Date: 10/19/2010 05:46 PM >>>> Subject: RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Longer-term, I think we should move in the direction of having >>>> variety >>>> of standardized messages to display on documents to indicate >>>> their level >>>> of official-ness and final-ness, and put a message on every >>>> single >>>> document and web page that we make visible to the public. I'm >>>> more >>>> concerned about the public finding the TC's outdated versions of >>>> technical proposals for DITA features than about the public >>>> reading SC >>>> documents. Also, a lot of publicly-available content on OASIS's >>>> websites >>>> is simply the ideas of one or more individual TC members and >>>> isn't even >>>> approved by a subcommittee, and that stuff needs disclaimers >>>> most of >>>> all. But all that will require more mulling-over for a later >>>> time. End >>>> of rant for now ;) >>>> >>>> For our immediate needs, I think the gist of Bruce's suggestion >>>> is good, >>>> and suggest the following rewordings for clarity: >>>> >>>> "This document reflects exploratory work by a subcommittee of >>>> the DITA >>>> Technical Committee and is not endorsed by the DITA Technical >>>> Committee >>>> as a whole. It is not a reliable guide as to the future >>>> direction of >>>> DITA, and should not be taken as guidance for using DITA or for >>>> developing DITA tools." >>>> >>>> W.r.t. Michael's request for guidance on the second issue he >>>> described, >>>> I don't have any thoughts at this time, although I appreciate >>>> the >>>> question. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Su-Laine >>>> >>>> Su-Laine Yeo >>>> Solutions Consultant >>>> JustSystems Canada, Inc. >>>> Office: 778-327-6356 >>>> syeo@justsystems.com >>>> >>>> XMetaL Community Forums: http://forums.xmetal.com >>>> <http://forums.xmetal.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Michael Boses [mailto:mboses@QUARK.com >>>> <mailto:mboses@QUARK.com> ] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:33 AM >>>> To: Doug Morrison; dita@lists.oasis-open.org >>>> Subject: RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming >>>> >>>> Doug, I see the point that many entities outside of the DITA TC >>>> provide >>>> guidance. I think the issue here is clarification that >>>> subcommittees do >>>> not issue guidance. Official OASIS Guidance, when it originates >>>> in a >>>> subcommittee, is the result of subcommittee deliverables being >>>> vetted >>>> and incorporated into guidance by the parent committee. >>>> >>>> At least this is how I understand it as someone trying to follow >>>> the >>>> rules as a subcommittee co-chair. There are two things we have >>>> been >>>> asked to do: >>>> >>>> - place a caveat on our posts indicating their >>>> status as not >>>> approved for implementation (It looks like Bruce's wording >>>> achieves >>>> that). >>>> >>>> - refrain from presenting subcommittee work as >>>> an official OASIS >>>> TC position in a public forum (webinar, conference, white paper, >>>> etc) >>>> >>>> I still need clarification on the second issue, as my >>>> understanding may >>>> allow more exposure of the subcommittee work than the TC would >>>> like. >>>> Presenting some of the ideas of our subcommittee is the best way >>>> to vet >>>> them with the actual stakeholders in external organizations. We >>>> certainly can pass on that opportunity, but I need to make sure >>>> that is >>>> the TC's intention. It may be that any public presentations we >>>> make will >>>> need to include a disclaimer similar to the one we will place on >>>> posts. >>>> >>>> Perhaps, Don, Michael, or others on the TC can clarify if and >>>> how we >>>> handle informing the public on progress and obtaining feedback. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Michael Boses >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Doug Morrison [mailto:dmorrison@dita4all.com >>>> <mailto:dmorrison@dita4all.com> ] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:07 AM >>>> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org >>>> Subject: Re: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming >>>> >>>> I think the final sentence "Such guidance is exclusively in the >>>> >>>> purview of the DITA Technical Committee" should be dropped - >>>> because it >>>> is not true as it stands, and not necessary. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Doug Morrison >>>> Information Architect >>>> http://dita4all.com <http://dita4all.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13/10/2010 15:33, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote: >>>> > In yesterday's call, we talked about subcommittees needing >>>> some kind >>>> of >>>> > cover for creative discussion and brainstorming so that >>>> outside >>>> readers >>>> > of the discussion won't take it as guidance from the TC. The >>>> relevant >>>> > bit from the minutes (as amended to include Seth's name): >>>> > >>>> >> Seth Park: For DITA and composite environments, we came up >>>> with >>>> >> a feature request that was technically not implementable. >>>> >> Is there a `code word' under which to talk in papers and >>>> >> not shut down creativity. >>>> >> MB: A standard disclaimer would be wonderful. >>>> >> Don, MP: Let's pursue that on the alias. >>>> > I imagine two aspects of a disclaimer, its content and its >>>> location. >>>> > >>>> > For example, on the title page or in a footnote on the title >>>> or in a >>>> > note paragraph placed prominently on the first page (to be >>>> decided), a >>>> > subcommittee document might say something like: >>>> > >>>> > This paper reflects exploratory work by a subcommittee of the >>>> DITA >>>> > Technical Committee. It is not a reliable guide as to the >>>> future >>>> > direction of DITA, and should not be taken as guidance for >>>> implementing >>>> > or using DITA. Such guidance is exclusively in the purview of >>>> the DITA >>>> > Technical Committee. >>>> > >>>> > Let the discussion begin! >>>> > >>>> > /B >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS >>>> TC that >>>> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in >>>> OASIS at: >>>> > >>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >>>> <https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC >>>> that >>>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS >>>> at: >>>> >>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >>>> <https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC >>>> that >>>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS >>>> at: >>>> >>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >>>> <https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC >>>> that >>>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS >>>> at: >>>> >>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >>>> <https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]