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

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.



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 
> 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]