Re: [odf-adoption] Re: [odf-camp] Re: ODF Interoperability Camp Follow-up

[Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org>]

On Friday 02 November 2007 15:48:54 robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> What if we had something like this:
>
> 1) Interoperability coordination happens within OASIS and OASIS membership
> is required to participate
> 2) Vendors pay their own way to become OASIS members.  Standards
> development need to be funded somehow for the member services they
> provide.
> 3) Individuals and representatives from smaller FOSS projects could join
> either as individual members ($300) or could be given a fee-waived
> membership grant.   We did this, as you know, in the ODF TC and the
> Accessibility TC.

I think that is what Carol also suggested :)
And I pointed out why I think that fails.

> So, I think that doing this within OASIS would not require that we leave
> anyone out.  We can accommodate everyone, if we wanted.  There are also
> important benefits of this approach since all participants would be
> required to agree to the OASIS IP rules, which is an important
> consideration.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the goals and purpose of this workgroup,  but can 
you explain why coordination and sharing test cases etc requires IP rules to 
be in place?  Its not like this workgroup produces documents...

Or, let me ask it the other way around; what advantage is there for advancing 
ODF interoperability to use a mailinglist that only a select few people can 
write to, with the added restriction that they have to agree to a rather long 
agreement first?

I would personally aim for wide participation with loads of volunteers doing 
tests and lots of ODF-implementers working together.  Putting up all sorts of 
barriers like you all suggest means you will only hear a select few 
companies / people.  And that will just give you a false sense of security.
-- 
Thomas Zander

This is a digitally signed message part.