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: SC34 WG6 meeting


You seem to be responding to a question I didn't ask, something along the lines of "what has the ODF TC done in response to Resolution #3?"  I was more interested in knowing why you've written a blog post about something that didn't happen (Microsoft urging SC34 to withdraw ODF 1.0).

Personally, I think that it reflects poorly on the ODF TC as a whole for one of our members to be actively promoting an apparently fictionalized version of a meeting where ODF maintenance issues were discussed, but I'll not press the matter any further.


-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:02 PM
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [office] Re: SC34 WG6 meeting

Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> wrote on 12/15/2009 01:34:49 PM:

> SC34 WG6 meeting
> I've read with some concern Rob's latest blog post, here: http:// 
> www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html.  Although not 
> an official ODF TC document, it comes from the co-chair of the TC and 
> it's addressing a matter of ODF maintenance, so I expect that many 
> people will see it as an authoritative source of information about 
> recent developments in ODF maintenance.

Hi Doug,

The blog post deals with ODF maintenance discussions in SC34.  It mentions nothing about maintenance conversations within the OASIS ODF TC concerning ODF 1.0 or ODF 1.1, and it does not concern ODF maintenance discussions or actions in or of the ODF TC.  I don't see how anyone could consider that to be an authoritative ODF TC statement.  But out of an abundance of caution I will add a link to this list post to my blog post.

As for a TC response on "Resolution #3", we actually have sent a formal response to SC34 on that, several weeks ago, saying we were considering the question but had not yet reached consensus.  In fact, the TC was discussing this topic long before SC34 ever broached the topic, back as long ago as March 2009.  At that time the consensus was that we would wait until the OASIS ODF 1.2 ballot was underway before working on any amendment.  But since then, OASIS has instituted additional requirements for submission of OASIS standards to other organizations, which are described here: 


So we need to consider these requirements as well, including holding a formal application to the OASIS President, a memorandum of understanding with JTC1 and an "Interoperability Demo" with three independent implementations participating, according to the Interop Demo policy:


As mentioned before, we would also need to sync up ODF 1.1 with our Approved Errata for ODF 1.0.

So this is not as simple as simply having a meeting vote and tossing ODF
1.1 over the wall to SC34.  There is a substantial amount of work required here.  So far, neither your nor SC34's interest in this amendment has been matched with an equal level of enthusiasm for volunteering to accomplish these tasks.  Until there is both consensus that we want an ODF 1.1 amendment and the above requirements have names assigned to them, I don't see how this can advance. 

In the end, we, as ODF TC members determine our own priorities, both with our votes and how we deploy our finite resources.  SC34 is one stakeholder, among many, that I personally take heed of when gathering 
requirements and determining my priorities.    But SC34 is not in the 
position to dictate requirements for me or the ODF TC.  I assume it is the same for you, Doug?



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:

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