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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

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


Subject: Re: [office] The Phantom Proposals


I certainly hope we're not going to start long discussions about the  
possible misinterpretations of blog posts from various members of  
this, or related TCs. Seems like there's plenty of that to go around  
in the blogosphere, and people will interpret the facts to their liking.

Regards,

Mary

Mary P McRae
Director, Standards Development
Technical Committee Administrator
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
web: www.oasis-open.org
twitter: fiberartisan  #oasisopen
phone: 1.603.232.9090

Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.








On May 19, 2009, at 5:20 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Hi Doug, If you agree with the general outline of the events as I
> described them, you might want to revisit your blog entry of May 13th,
> where you write:
>
> "We then continued submitting proposed solutions to specific
> interoperability issues, and by the time proposals for ODF 1.2 were  
> cut
> off in December, we had submitted 15 proposals for consideration.   
> The TC
> voted on what to include in version 1.2, and none of the proposals  
> we had
> submitted made it into ODF 1.2. "
>
> What you wrote there is 100% factually accurate, I believe, but  
> could very
> easily be misconstrued, especially since it fails to mention that the
> proposals were effectively voluntarily withdrawn prior to the vote.  I
> think that if that point is clarified, this would stop the
> misunderstanding from propagating further.  Or maybe it wouldn't.  I  
> don't
> know.  Things like this develop a life of their own sometimes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Rob
>
>
> Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> wrote on 05/19/2009 04:52:51  
> PM:
>
>
>>
>> Rob, I appreciate your eagerness to clarify the public record and
>> get the facts correct.
>>
>> Can you please provide a link to whatever misrepresentation you are
>> trying to correct?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Doug
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:43 PM
>> To: Carol Geyer; Mary McRae
>> Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [office] The Phantom Proposals
>>
>> Hi Carol and Mary (and FYI, for the ODF TC members, who all already  
>> know
>
>> this),
>>
>> I'm starting to here a claim that the ODF TC rejected "15 proposals"
> made
>> by Microsoft to improve interoperability.  "IBM and Sun voted them  
>> down"
>
>> is how I hear it phrased.  Just in case you get any inquiries on  
>> this, I
>
>> would like to draw your attention to the TC's record, which does not
>> substantiate the claim.
>>
>> By last November, the ODF TC had completed the technical features  
>> it had
>
>> initially set out to do for ODF 1.2: metadata, accessibility, formula
> and
>> database.  We had completed our goals.  But we were still tracking  
>> 50 or
>
>> so miscellaneous member proposals on our wiki, and this number was
>> increasing.  You can see the list of proposals on the wiki here:
>>
>> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/List_of_Proposals
>>
>> On November 24th, by decision of the TC, with no objections, we  
>> agreed
> to
>> limit the number of additional proposals we would consider for ODF  
>> 1.2.
>> You can see the agreement in the meeting minutes here:
>>
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200811/msg00124.html
>>
>> On December 8th, again without objection, the TC agreed to have a  
>> vote
> on
>> which of the remaining member proposals would be considered for ODF  
>> 1.2.
>>
>> This agreement is in the minutes here:
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00055.html
>>
>> You can see that step #4 in the minutes called for members to  
>> reiterate
>> their proposals if they wished to have them included in the ballot.
>>
>> The list of reiterated proposals is listed here:
>>
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00089.html
>>
>> Michael sent a note to make sure that this list was not lacking any
>> proposal.  No errors in that list were reported.
>>
>> We voted on the list and the results are here:
>>
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00156.html
>>
>> All eligible TC members voted.
>>
>> So, although it may be cleverly stated that "None of Microsoft's
>> interoperability proposals were accepted" this is solely because  
>> the TC
>> members from Microsoft did not reiterate their proposals and in  
>> effect
>> withdrew them from consideration.  I remember the call distinctly,  
>> where
>
>> they said they did so because they did not want to slow down ODF 1.2.
>>
>> I want to make sure that the record is crystal clear in this regard,
> since
>> statements are being made, and actions attributed to members of  
>> this TC,
>
>> which are false, misleading and reflect poorly on OASIS, this TC, our
> work
>> and our decision making process. I don't think any of us want to see
> that
>> happen.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]