[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Re: SC34 WG6 meeting
Doug, you are the one who raised in your note the question of Resolution #3 and the TC's response to it. So far as I could determine, that was the only portion of your note that was relevant to the TC's work. So I responded to that. In any case, it was a good point to bring up, since evidently there was some confusion on that point. Regards, -Rob Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> wrote on 12/15/2009 05:13:58 PM: > > Rob, > > 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. > > Regards, > Doug > > -----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: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php#submitwork > > 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: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/who/interop_demo_policy.php > > 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? > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]