RE: [office] REQUEST on Adjustments and Reballoting for ODF 1.2 Public Review

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Michael,

Identifying as draft 4 and upgrading the rev number of Parts 1-3 works all
right.

I will rename my copies of the CD05 materials so that there will be no
confusion with the CD05 that comes out of the current ballot.

I have settled on "overview" also.

Thanks,

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 00:30
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: 'OpenDocument Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [office] REQUEST on Adjustments and Reballoting for ODF 1.2
Public Review

On 06/09/10 17:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>  1. I assume that the new ballot will be conducted electronically, given a
> motion and a second after the modified documents are available.  That way
we
> are not hindered by the absence of a meeting on Monday, June 14.

Sorry for the late reply. I was out of the office the last three days.

> 
>  2. Can we please identify the materials for the ballot as CD05-revo1 so
> that what we approve becomes CD06 as approved for submission to Public
> Review?  I know that this will be minor for Parts 1-3, but for the
> main/master or whatever it is, there will be body as well as front-matter
> changes.  (I am attempting to avoid confusion over what particular
documents
> are and having two documents with the same identification.)

I don't think we can call the new draft cd05-rev01. Since the ballot was 
invalid, we have not approved a CD05. Therefore, we can't call the new 
drafts CD05.

> 
>  3. WHAT DO WE CALL THE FRONT PIECE?  It is easy to talk about and refer
to
> sections in Parts 1-3.  How do we and others refer to the single document
> formerly known as Part 0?  It is confusing to call it simply ODF 1.2 CD0x
> since that is also the name for the composite set.

Formally, the document is "the standard". Informally, I'm calling this 
the overview document.

Michael

>   Although it doesn't quite serve the function, I would not object to it
> being "Overview" or something (especially if none of Parts 1-3 have such a
> section - I haven't checked).  I don't know what should be the title of
that
> portion, but we need and others need some unambiguous way when we need to
> discuss something in that portion of the specification.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
[ ... ]