[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 Michael 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 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]