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] RE: [office-comment] OASIS Public Review Question

Dear TC members,

Rob's suggestions sounds very reasonable to me. If we can have a ballot 
to extend a public review while the public review runs, it appears to be 
reasonable to move that towards the end of the public review, when we 
have a better understanding how many and what kind of comments we received.

I will follow-up on this in another e-mail.

Best regards


Am 05.12.09 20:36, robert_weir@us.ibm.com schrieb:
> Damn, address auto-completion. Yes, I meant this for the TC list.
> In any case, Mary did respond to me, saying that it was possible, and that 
> if the TC approved a motion to extend the review period of x days, she 
> would send out an announcement to that effect. 
> So I think that may be the better solution.  Mary also pointed out that 
> regardless of the length of the review, many people will just wait until 
> the last week of the review before looking at it.  That is the human 
> psychology angle to it.    So you might actually get more comments with a 
> 60 day review followed by a 30 day review than you would by announcing in 
> advance a 90 day review.
> Would that be acceptable to you?  Send out for 60 days now, and then, a 
> couple weeks before that expires, we can vote to extend it by x days? 
> We'll probably have a better feel for what an appropriate value of x is at 
> that point as well.   It isn't clear to me at this point, for example, 
> whether in 60 days we'll want to extend the review on the same PRD, or 
> whether we'll want to make a revision in a new CD and send the revisions 
> out for further review.  It is hard to tell at this point in the game, and 
> I think we want to keep our options open.  We might also find that 
> OpenFormula is ready for public review in 60 days and we'll be ready then 
> to send all three parts out for simultaneous 60 day review.  But if we had 
> committed up front to a 90 review of Part 1, then we'd be facing a 30-day 
> delay.  I don't think we want to be in a position where the public review 
> of all of ODF 1.2 cannot proceed because we're waiting for a public review 
> of one part of ODF 1.2 to complete.
> Regards,
> -Rob
> From:
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
> To:
> <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>
> Date:
> 12/05/2009 11:57 AM
> Subject:
> RE: [office-comment] OASIS Public Review Question
> I assume this went to office-comment by mistake [;<)? 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 05:32
> To: Mary McRae
> Cc: office-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [office-comment] OASIS Public Review Question
> Hi Mary, a process question for you.  Is it possible to send a PRD for a 
> 60-day review, and then based on the volume of comments, decide to extend 
> the review for a further 30 days?  Or are we required to prescient and 
> request a 90-day comment period initially?  In other words, is it possible 
> to extend a public review once it has been issued?
> -Rob

Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

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]