[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]