[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Motion for approving ODF 1.2 as Committee Draft andsubmitting it for public review.
Dennis, On 6/11/2010 7:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Well, I would say it is our crafting of three things into a single motion > that makes it seem a little weird. We will be designating authoritative > versions of the documents that comprise CD05, once we approve the documents > that constitute that Committee Draft. > > Fine, but we don't get to just make the rules up as we go along. 3.2 Public Review says: > Before the TC can approve its Committee Draft as a Committee > Specification the TC must conduct a public review of the work. The > decision by the TC to submit the specification for public review > requires a Full Majority Vote, and must be accompanied by a > recommendation from the TC of external stakeholders who should be > notified of the review. Note there is two (2) out of the three (3) things in the motion. The third item, designation of the format, is found under 2.18 Specification Quality which reads: > All TC-approved versions of documents (i.e. Committee Drafts, Public > Review Drafts, and Committee Specifications) must be delivered to the > TC’s document repository in the (1) editable source, (2) HTML or > XHTML, and (3) PDF formats; and the TC must explicitly designate one > of those delivered formats as the authoritative document. Unless you know of some other reading of *all* that I am unaware of, I think this covers the case at hand. I suppose the format issue could be broken out but then the question would be why? Do you really think the TC will vote to approve a Committee Draft and then fail to get a majority for one format or another? Don't we have better issues to be spending our time on? Hope you have already started a great weekend! Patrick > The way in which this whole conversation is strange is that we are actually > choosing an OpenOffice.org 3.2 .odt document as the authoritative document > and knowledge of that producer is relevant, just as if we'd chosen Word 2007 > .odt versus Word 2010 .odt or whatever. > > I don't know which options were employed in the production, but it might > even be the recommended extended-document Save option of OO.o 3.2. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 14:11 > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Re: [office] Motion for approving ODF 1.2 as Committee Draft and > submitting it for pubic review. > > > >>> Shall further from the three versions of the specification documents >>> (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee >>> draft the ODF versions be the authoritative ones? >>> >>> >> so this refers to versions of the specification that _will_ be produced >> after approval. So it does not refer to the files that are already >> available. >> >> >> > Ah, ok, but same answer. Yes? > > That is we vote on the ones listed, from those will be produced the > "approved" specification documents, of which, the ODF version will be > the authoritative one. > > Yes? > > I know it sounds odd but it is the OASIS process that makes it all sound > weird. > > [ ... ] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > -- Patrick Durusau email@example.com Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau