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] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion


"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 12/03/2009 
12:12:15 PM:

> 
> Some Parliamentary Matters:
> 
> 1. I assume that the agreed motion is to be offered on the agenda of the
> 2009-12-07 Coordination Call.  Is that correct?  Or are you proposing to
> initiate an electronic ballot?
> 

Michael made a motion on the list.  I recommended a change and said I 
would support the motion as amended, and Michael agreed to the change. If 
the motion bears a resemblance to a motion made in a previous meeting, 
that is immaterial.   A meeting motion would is approved or not in a 
meeting, and a motion made on the list is approved or not on the list.  I 
don't think they necessarily carry over. 

> 2. Is this one motion or three, each contingent on the passage of the
> preceding one(s)?
> 

Michael made as single motion.  So, as given it is all-or-nothing. 
However, it is valid to ask the motion to be divided into separate 
questions, and if there is consensus to do so that is what we would do. 
But I don't think you would want three separate questions, since the 
format and external stakeholders questions are required for the public 
review ballot and should not be split out.  So at most you could have a CD 
ballot, and a PRD ballot contingent on the CD ballot passing.

> Some Procedural Matters:
> 
> 3. Surely there are more external stakeholders with regard to this
> substantial specification. 
> 

Certainly.  But we typically list out those groups with which we are in 
liaison with, or with whom we have contacts.  Everyone else is lumped into 
the general public notification that OASIS will send out.  Remember, this 
is a significant revision of a high profile standard.  So the fact that we 
are finally going out to public review is not going to go unnoticed by any 
stakeholder. 

>   3.1 I would think that there are other industry groups that have an
> interest in this specification, as well as civil administration and
> governmental bodies that have asserted conditions on the use and 
adoption of
> ODF in their affairs.
> 
>   3.2 I also wonder about organizations, such as the IETF, the W3C, and 
the
> Dublin Core Metadata Initiative on which their specifications are relied
> upon heavily in various aspects of the normative provisions of the ODF 
1.2
> specification.  (They might consider themselves stakeholders in the way 
that
> the SVG group has an interest in ensuring that their specifications are
> relied upon in suitable ways.)
> 

For both of these, if you know someone's email address and are want us to 
send them a note when this goes out for public review, then we can add 
them.  In particular, an email address of some member-only email list 
isn't going to help.

> 4. Finally, I wonder if 60 days is sufficient, especially across a time 
span
> where there is considerable holiday and year-end activity in many 
external
> (and internal) stakeholder communities around the world.
> 

Remember, we will be required to send it out for an additional 60 day 
review when we have all three parts ready.  So 60+60 = 120 days combined.  
Plus we have another month of OASIS review during the ballot.   So the 
total comes out to 5 months of review.   I think that should be 
sufficient. 

-Rob

>  - Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 06:52
> To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
> Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion
> 
> On 12/03/09 15:32, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > For these external stakeholders:
> > 
> > - International Digital Publishing Forum
> > - W3C WebApp WG.
> > 
> > I think only the Packaging part was really of interest to them.  So 
I'd 
> > remove them from the list for Parts 1 and 2.
> 
> That's okay for me. Actually, I just took the list we had for part 3.
> 
> Michael
> > 
> > But with that change, if agreeable to you, I'd second the motion.
> > 
> > -Rob
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From:
> > Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg 
<Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>
> > To:
> > OpenDocument Mailing List <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Date:
> > 12/03/2009 02:58 AM
> > Subject:
> > [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion
> > Sent by:
> > Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dear TC members,
> > 
> > in the TC call on Monday we discussed that the next ODF 1.2 part 1 
draft
> > that gets available may be a candidate for a public review. I have
> > uploaded that draft on Tuesday, and and now would like to make the
> > following motion:
> > 
> > 
> > Shall the OASIS ODF TC approve ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD03 Rev 07
> > 
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00002.html
> > 
> > and the corresponding schema files
> > 
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200910/msg00455.html
> > 
> > as a Committee Draft, and shall that Committee Draft be send out for a
> > 60-day Public Review, with the external stakeholders listed below 
being
> > notified?
> > 
> > - OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC,
> > - OASIS ODF Adoption TC,
> > - JTC1/SC34,
> > - International Digital Publishing Forum
> > - W3C WebApp WG.
> > 
> > Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
> > (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
> > draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
> > 
> > Best regards
> > 
> > Michael
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
> StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
> Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
> D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
> http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
> http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
> 
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
>       D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]