Re: [office-collab] WD04 comments [3 Thorsten]

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

<office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 01/11/2012
11:31:40 AM:

> From: "Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca>
> To: <office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 01/11/2012 12:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [office-collab] WD04 comments [3
Thorsten]
> Sent by: <office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 09:24 -0700, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > I don't think anyone suggested that they would "tell us
what to do". 
> > 
> > If you look back at the comments received during previous public
> > reviews, say with ODF 1.2, you'll see that we received a lot
of useful
> > feedback, including from SC34 members.  Not all stakeholders
are on
> > the TC, so there is value in engaging via the public review process.
> 
> I think there is a big difference between
> 
> (1) us saying "This is a specification we would like to propose."
and to
> get feedback on it and
> 
> (2) us saying "We don't like either of these two proposals as
they are
> but what do you think?"
> 

The proposal is to solicit further review of the only
two proposals we have in front of us.  Despite 12 months time for
anyone else to bring forward an additional proposal, this is what we have
now.  If you or anyone else has an additional proposal to make, I'm
sure we'd all love to receive it, discuss it, and subject it to the same
level of scrutiny that the existing two proposals have had.  Having
more choices is a good thing.

Although I am not abandoning all hope that there is
a 3rd proposal, better than the two we have, and one that we'd all agree
on, the fact that no such proposal has emerged, not even in outline, after
a year of discussion, makes me less confident that this is likely.

Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong here.

-Rob

> Andreas 
> 
> -- 
> Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD, FTICA
> Concordia University College of Alberta
> [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM]