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] Irregular Procedure: New ballot"OpenDocument v1.2 (2nd ballot)"

Hi Dennis,

since the previous ballot was invalid and the changes non-substantial, I 
think it was not required to start with a new motion. But to be on the 
safe side, I deleted the ballot and will make a motion for a new ballot 
in a few moments.


On 06/11/10 19:45, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I notice that we have been hasty with the electronic ballot procedures, cutting little corners. 
> I am not appealing those actions, since I don't think the outcome would have been different either way.  But I think we should become more cautious and pay more attention so that there is no question about how we conducted ourselves in case of retrospective concerns later on.
> Here's what I notice,
>  1. There was a motion and a second to initiate the previous e-ballot, on ODF 1.2 drafts.  When the e-ballot was finally conducted, it was with rather different versions of the ODF 1.2 drafts, including a complete new overview document, rearrangement of conformance, etc., compared to the drafts that were in hand at the time the motion was made.  However, the e-ballot was conducted as if enabled by the previous motion.  That is my presumption because there is no record of anything else.
>  2. The just-initiated ballot involving ODF 1.2 draft 4 has been undertaken with further changes to the documents and no motion or second whatsoever.  Although the previous ballot was invalidated by the TC Administrator, I think the standing rules should still apply for any new ballot that is done.
> I doubt whether this matters, since I am sure that the requisite motion and second would have been easily obtained.  
> My concern is that we may appear to be too careless about the formalities and have that raise concerns about what else we might be careless of in our haste (and I, for one, have no information concerning the basis of that apparent haste).  In any case, I don't think we want more unexpected do-overs.
> I recommend that we be more systematic and meticulous in future electronic ballots and also how we word motions to be specific about what it is we are undertaking.
>   - Dennis
>   - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>    Standards are arbitrary solutions to recurring problems (R. W. Bemer)
>    Although not by becoming the recurring problem (orcmid).
>   When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org] 
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 05:30
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: Groups - oasis - New ballot "OpenDocument v1.2 (2nd ballot)"
> OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC member,
> A new ballot has been presented to OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC.
> To vote on this ballot, go here:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/ballot.php?id=1889
> [ ... ]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: J├╝rgen Kunz

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