Re: [office] Conformance Clauses: Building consensus around ODF 1.2

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Dave,

Now, now. Let's not be hasty.

I think there is more than enough grounds for mis-understanding and 
working through the discussion to need to have that discussion clouded 
by suspicions of ill-will, etc.

I have been working with members of this committee for a very long time 
and even so am still surprised that when we finally understand each 
other, it turns out that we were talking about completely different things.

That happens in any internationally based community that is trying to 
write a standard. As you are well aware.

Let's try to work through the issues without clever repartee or carrying 
tales to other communities. If anyone feels really vigorous, please help 
with proofing the current drafts that I have been posting. That would be 
a useful channel for your energy.

And no, just for the record I don't have a really fixed opinion about 
the conformance clause other than it needs to be clear, it needs to 
enable ODF conformance for the largest possible community (I am 
interested in its spread after all) and it needs to meet various needs 
of the communities that are interested in it. What nooks and nuances 
that it needs to have to do all that will be matters of *civil* debate 
and compromise. As all standards are.

I hope *everyone* is at the start of a great week!

Patrick

Dave Pawson wrote:
> 2009/2/23 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> <Michael.Brauer@sun.com>:
>   
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> with some interest, I have read your blog regarding conformance clauses.
>>
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/02/19/building-consensus-around-odf-1-2.aspx
>>     
>
> Yes it was interesting Michael.
>
>
>   
>> So, first of all, then reading your blog, I got the impression that the
>> current conformance clauses would contain only one level. You are
>> probably aware of this, but I anyway would like to point out that the
>> current proposal contains two levels. One allows the so called foreign
>> elements, the other does not.
>>     
>
> Which in and of itself is a little of a smokescreen, compared to
> most specifications, which require conformance to the specification.
>   How about a single statement,
> "Conformance is defined as   	
>
> Testing to determine whether an implemented system fulfills its
> requirements against
> all normative requirements of the standard.
> "
>
> The constraint being that 1.2 has normative requirements to replace 'statements'
> as is  currently the case.
>
>
>   
>> You further state that the conformance "clause was inserted into a
>> committee draft at the last minute". It was not. When
>> uploading draft 8j on the 11th, Patrick clearly stated that the
>> conformance clauses have been integrated.
>>     
>
> I agree that for such a contention issue (see the email log)
> it perhaps should have received an agenda item with intent to vote?
>
>
>
>   
>> Regarding reaching consensus: In order to reach consensus on the
>> conformance clauses, it is essential to understand what the concerns of
>> those are who disagree, and also to get proposals what needs to be
>> changed in order to make the conformance clauses acceptable. I have
>> asked several times for specific feedback to the individual clauses, but
>> did not get much feedback. The feedback that I got has been to the
>> best of my knowledge integrated into the proposal. In so far, it is not
>> clear, at least to me, where your concerns are.
>>     
>
> Perhaps you simply don't want to see the concerns Michael?
>
>
>
>
>   
>> I further have asked for feedback from those who did not agree to the
>> committee draft last Monday in the TC call, but unfortunately did
>> not get any feedback so far.
>>     
>
> Please take this as negative feedback.
>
>
>   
>> You announced that you will explain your position in more detail, and
>> I'm looking forward to read this on the TC's mailing list. I further
>> would be glad to receive specific suggestions how the current conformance
>> clauses have to be modified to get your acceptance. Knowing which specific
>> modification you would like to see for the text of the conformance clauses
>> would be very helpful and I think essential to figure out whether the TC can
>> reach a consensus regarding the conformance clauses, or not.
>>     
>
> I can only assume this negative feedback, as with all my others on
> conformance, will be ignored.
>
> I'll leave you on that thought.
>
>
>
>
>
>   

-- 
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)