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: ODF future versions to JTC1

Happy new year, all.  This follows up on our conversation at the TC's
last meeting about ODF v1.1 and JTC1, and later correspondence.

As we discussed last time, OASIS must now apply for re-certification
as a PAS submitter.  In our last application, a few years ago, several
P-members (nations) voted against OASIS, saying that they believed
that OASIS and the TC were not responsive (as of 2007), in sending
updates to ODF to JTC1, after the completion of the original approval
of the PAS v1.0 2d ed. as ISO/IEC 26300 (2006).

As we discussed last year, we worked in 2008 to negotiate better
mutual expectations with JTC1.  These included statements issued from
JTC1 and SC34, which you have seen, and also the changes made by our
Board of Directors to our own submissions policy, particularly Section
5(b) here:  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php#submitwork

The policy encourages us to make sure that, once we have a jointly
approved specification, we keep our promises to keep the other party

At the TC's last teleconference, I expressed concern that the TC
support our long-overdue plan to keep JTC1 up to date with us, by
making v1.1 available to JTC1 in some form -- before we complete our
PAS renewal candidacy (1st quarter 2010) or submit ODF v1.2.

We have an application ready to send to JTC1 for OASIS PAS status
renewal, and it's due now.  Confirming our plans for v1.1 is part of
what's needed to complete it convincingly.   I wish to include a
statement that the TC has committed to make v1.1 available to JTC1
promptly, in some reasonable form.  (See below.)  That did seem to be
the sense of the committee, at our last meeting.  To address Michael's

>  1. It is my understanding that ODF 1.1 would become an
> amendment of ISO/IEC 26300. What would be submitted
> from OASIS to JTC1 in that case is not ODF 1.1 itself, but
> a diff between ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.0 2nd edition. Is that
> correct?

Yes, that's how Patrick Durusau and I read the rules, as discussed
last time.  Upon approval, the 2007 v1.1 would become an amendment to
26300(2006), not a new 26300(2010).  As a matter of presentation
style, we probably also can & should send a nonnormative full copy of
v1.1 for information.

> 2. Does this require an "OASIS-organized public interoperability
> demonstration" as described in item 1(c) of liaison policy?

I believe so, but I believe it can be waived by the Board, and in
light of the "amendment" treatment to address this left-over lag from
2007, I think we should ask them to do so.  Any other views?

> 3. At the time we prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition in response to comments
> attached to the ISO/IEC 26300 ballot where was no notion of an
> "OASIS errata" existing. We therefore prepared ODF 1.0 2nd edition
> (rather than an errata). ODF 1.0 2nd edition went through a public review
> and was approved as Committee Specification. Can we consider it to be
> equivalent to an approved OASIS errata?

I believe so.  Our "Approved Errata" rule came after, and mostly was
modeled on, the "second edition" process we used with ODF.  And we
acted consistently with that position, by sending it (2d ed.) back to
JTC1 as an updated approved submission.

> 4. To prepare diffs between ODF 1.0 and 1.1 we may have to prepare
> specification documents that have the erratas applied. If we prepare a new
> specification document by applying approved erratas to an approved
> specification (let's say an ODF 1.0 third edition by applying
> ODF 1.0 errata 01 to ODF 1.0 second edition), does that specification
> document require a public review and/or ballot?

A change to the spec, under OASIS TC Process rules, always would
require a re-approval process, yes.  Either as new Approved Errata or
a new OASIS Standard.  This is why, in my view, the simpler approach,
as we discussed at the last meeting, would be to submit the 2007
version of v1.1 (already approved), not updated, and represented
definitively as a diff

This would give JTC1 a v1.1 (2007) that matches our v1.1 (2007). We
can and should send the subsequent errata, also ... but that's an
ongoing process, separately, and mostly will also be rolled up  into
v1.2 as I understand it.  So there is no rule requiring that we send
them at the same time.  Our problem here, in terms of release timing
and politics both, is that to JTC1's eye, we are 2.5 years late in
sending over v1.1.

In our imminent request for OASIS PAS renewal, I would like to include
a sentence, based on our last meeting and any feedback here, that
acknowledges our good faith efforts, along these lines:

"OASIS policy supports keeping shared specifications synchronized, by
providing to JTC1 the future finally-approved versions of
previously-approved standards.  OASIS intends to submit the last
(v1.1) version of ODF, probably as an amendment now that we have
guidance regarding its formatting, and also, when it is completed, the
major revision v1.2 expected to be approved later in 2010."

Comments on that proposed statement, or any of the other points above,
are welcome.   Thanks as always for all of your work.  We're looking
forward with enthusiasm to getting on with v1.2 too.  Best regards.

~ James Bryce Clark
~ General Counsel, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark

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