Re: [office] Re: ODF future versions to JTC1

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 01/07/2010 09:19:33 AM:

> 
> Rob,
> 
> A couple of quick points.
> 
> First, you say there is  "no consensus on the TC to move ODF 1.1 forward 

> to JTC1."
> 
> The more correct statement is that the question has never been formally 
> asked of the TC.
> 
> So what you say is literally true, but perhaps unintentionally 
> misleading to those outside the TC.
> 
> In the absence of the question being asked, there could be no indication 

> of a consensus or lack of one on this issue.
>

Uhhh... The TC voted to approve a liaison message to SC34 last month that 
said, in part:

"== Proposal to prepare amendment of ISO/IEC 26300 corresponding to OASIS 
ODF 1.1 ==

The ODF TC is aware of SC34's interest in this amendment, but has not yet 
reached consensus on whether the submission of ODF 1.1 and consequent 
preparation of such an amendment is desired.   The ODF TC will have 
further discussions on the topic."

So, yes, we did vote on this, and yes we voted to say that there was no 
consensus.

 
> I suggest we remedy that situation this coming Monday, January 11, 2010.
> 
> More to the point, the question is one of who the "customer" is in this 
> situation. It isn't members of the TC or even implementers of ODF in 
> various versions. The "customer" in this case *is* JTC1.
> 

One stakeholder among many. I would not call them "the" customer.

> Is there some reason why you disagree on that point? If there is I would 

> like to have it out in the open so we can discuss it.
> 

I do not disagree that they are one stakeholder among many.

> If, as I suspect is the case, JTC1 is the customer in this case, the 
> customer have voiced an interest in a particular version of ODF. For 
> reasons best known to it. Those may be compelling or silly reasons in 
> the view of some but the fact remains those are *their* reasons and they 

> are entitled to them.
> 
> I have never heard of a supplier arguing with a customer about their 
> reasons for wanting a particular service or product. It seems unnatural.
> 

Two JTC1 NBs expressed an interest in ODF 1.1 over a year ago.  The other 
30+ NBs have stated nothing. It is worth asking the question of whether, 
given the likely processing timetable for an ODF 1.1 amendment and a 1.2 
PAS submission, a 1.1 amendment is still desirable. Remember, OASIS is a 
member of JTC1 as well, and prompting a discussion of this question, is 
entirely reasonable.

-Rob