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] Proposal: Align IS 26300 to ODF 1.1 instead of 1.0 maintenance

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/07/2010 
08:28:32 PM:

> RE: [office] Proposal: Align IS 26300 to ODF 1.1 instead of 1.0 
> Rob,
> I need a couple of clarifications for my understanding, please.  (OH. 
And I
> meant WG6.  I must have been reading too many tweets about a WG4 call 
> held today.)
> I don't understand the technicalities about subdivision.  What is a
> subdivision and why would we need to ask for one?  Also, why would we 
need a
> New Work Item (NP) at JTC1, with 90-day ballot for that?

Sure.  Every document under development in JTC1 is assigned to a 
"project".  These are generally 1-to-1 to each standard, amendment, 
technical report, etc.  You can see the projects of SC34 in their 
"Programme of Work":


To create a new project, you can go through one of two procedures:

1) Submit a New Item Proposal (NP)to JTC1 where it is sent out for a 
3-month ballot. 


2) Approve a project subdivision at an SC Plenary meeting vote.  A 
sudivision takes an existing project and splits it into multiple projects, 
all within scope of the original project. This meeting vote is followed up 
with a 60-day default ballot.  The work on the project can begin 
immediately after the SC vote, though it would need to be canceled if JTC1 
disapproved the subdivision. 

So you only need to do one or the other. I'd do whatever is fastest. Since 
the next SC meeting is approximately 3 months away, I have no strong 

> Finally, you mention, in later note
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00082.html>, 
> (the?) 3 months for Patrick to have the work done by throwing ODF 1.1 
> the wall, then running to the JTC1 side and catching it as WG6 Project
> Editor.  Is that an essential 3 months or is it tied to the 90-day NP 
> that you've mentioned and/or the time remaining until the WG6 
> and SC34 plenary in Stockholm?

When an HP ballot goes out, it asks several questions, including whether 
the NB approves the new project, but also whether they will participate, 
whether they will supply an editor, and also "Do you have a major 
contribution or a reference document ready for submittal?" and "Will you 
have such a contribution in ninety days?". 

So essentially, the target for being able to approve the submission of ODF 
1.1 would be:

1) Within 90 days of the NP ballot


2) At or soon after the subdivision

I stated 3 months, since that is approximately the time left until the 
next Plenary, as well as the duration of an NB ballot, so whichever path 
we take, we would want it ready by then, to avoid further delays.
>  - Dennis

> PS: I wonder if it is now possible to have ODF 1.1 and any DIFF, as 
> submitted to SC34 enough in advance to have it available for moving 
> by WG6 and the subsequent SC34 plenary in Stockholm.

OASIS can only submit OASIS deliverables, like standards and approved 
errata.  So we cannot submit the diff.  At least that is my reading of it. 
 But OASIS can submitt ODF 1.1 according to the Liaison Policy, and then 
Patrick, wearing his SC34 ODF Project Editor hat can produce a diff.

And remember, we don't need the actual diff at the Plenary.  The meeting 
approves the subdivison, it does not approve ODF 1.1 or the diff. However, 
I think we would make best use of WG6's time if we actually are able to 
discuss the diff at the WG6 meeting that will occur before the Plenary.  I 
also believe that we would want the highest degree of commitment to 
submitting ODF 1.1 before going for a subdivision. Of course, if we can 
submit ODF 1.1 in time for the Plenary, that is even better.

Also, since we are not asking for a vote or a decision on the diff, I 
don't think we are obligated to produce it 4 weeks before the meeting.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00079.html
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:44
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [office] Proposal: Align IS 26300 to ODF 1.1 instead of 1.0
> maintenance
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/07/2010 
> 01:38:46 PM:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00078.html
> [ ... ]
> Remember, 
> > 6. We should be able to get this onto the WG4 agenda for Stockholm and
> > earlier to confirm alignment between OASIS and SC34 on this approach
> > (although we will probably already be in motion) to the degree that 
> > also reduce procedural delays (and establish good will) at SC34 (WG4). 

> > 
> Two ways of doing it:  Submit an NP (new work item) to JTC1 and let them 

> do a ballot on that.  Or request a subdivision at the SC Plenary.  The 
> time is around the same either way, since the ballot is 3-months and the 

> plenary is three months away. 
> -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]