RE: [office] OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-draft12.odt

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 10/16/2009 
03:36:28 PM:
 
> Speaking hypothetically, the combined ballot means that someone who 
thinks
> going to CD is fine but public review is premature has to be willing to 
end
> up with neither in that ballot round.
> 

It is certainly reasonable to request that we "divide the question" into 
two ballots.  But at this point it might just be faster to have the two 
votes on Monday's call.

> Since we've not yet had a CD for Part 3, I think we should work the 
stages
> progressively, especially since public review puts some restrictions on 
our
> ability to modify the document short of deciding not to go to CS and 
going
> to another CD instead, putting us pretty much back at start.
> 

The restriction is the TC cannot approve another CD of Part 3 while it is 
out for public review. But it is perfectly acceptable for the editor to 
make revisions to the text based on public review comments that have been 
received, as they are received. And if a TC member notices something that 
should be fixed, they can submit comments as well, and we can fix those.

We probably should set up some conventions in JIRA for this.  Imagine, 
hypothetically, that Part 3 is out for public review and then a few weeks 
later we put Part 1 out for public review.  For some period of time we 
will receive on the office-comment list:

1) public review comments on part 3
2) public review comments on part 1
3) public comments associated with no public review draft at all, e.g., 
comments on ODF 1.0 or ODF 1.1.

Since we have an OASIS process requirement to respond to public review 
comments, it will be important to track which bucket any given comment 
applies.  It should be clear from the context in most cases.  But there 
may be exceptions, in which case I propose that we should be conservative 
and treat them as public review comments if we can possibly interpret them 
that way.

We'll need to make sure that we can make this distinction on JIRA as well. 
 Maybe we need new "releases" defined in JIRA, for ODF12-PRD1-Part1 for 
the first public review of Part 1, and ODF12-PRD2-Part3 for the 2nd public 
review of Part 3, and eventually ODF12-PRD1-All for the 1st public review 
of all parts.

Or is there a better way to do this?

>  - Dennis 
> 
> PS: And the current draft seems to be attracting public comments as it 
is.
>

That's fine.  I hope it attracts even more comments when it is out for 
public review.  Remember, Part 3 is mainly pre-existing material and we've 
also processed changes for 4 years of public comments.  So I think it is 
pretty good shape. 

-Rob
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200910/msg00303.html
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 06:41
> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [office] OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-draft12.odt
> 
> +1 for conducting the ballot.  Since approving a CD and sending it out 
to 
> public review both require a Full Majority Vote, we should be able to do 

> this in a single ballot.  But we will need some additional language in 
the 
> ballot question.
> 
> I think we have the main question as:
> 
> "Shall the OASIS ODF TC approve ODF 1.2, Part III, Draft 12 as a 
Committee 
> Draft and to send that Committee Draft out for a 60-day Public Review?"
> 
> [ ... ]
>