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


Hi Dennis,

Rob was faster than me in replying, but I agree to all he says.

Regarding having a CD ballot and a PRD ballot contingent on the CD
ballot passing: Splitting the ballot would result in two different KAVI 
ballots, which would be announced by two unrelated e-mails to TC 
members. This adds some overhead to the balloting process.

Given that we are talking about a PRD ballot where the CD approval is a 
prerequisite only, I'm in favor of having one combined ballot only. If a 
TC member would have approved the draft as CD (but not as PRD), then she 
or he may let the TC know that by adding a comment while casting the vote.

Best regards

MichaelOn 12/03/09 19:58, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> "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 
>>
> 


-- 
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


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