[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next
Just my $.02, but I would be careful of this approach since anyone who must follow the ISO path vs the OASIS one would not be able to implement new features/improvements/etc until a new OS submission to JTC1 occurred and was approved. The TC was greatly criticized for not sending v1.1; intentionally avoiding OS approval would, I think, be frowned upon by SC34. Best regards and best wishes to all for a very happy holiday season, Mary On Dec 17, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Michael Brauer wrote: > Dear TC members, > > while we are waiting for the ODF 1.2 public review, I think it may be a > good time to share a few thoughts how I could imagine that we adapt our > specification process and schedule for future ODF versions to deliver > specifications more frequently, and how to lower the time from a first > feature proposal to a specification that contains the feature. > > I don't want to start with too many introductory words, but think a few > observation may be reasonable, in particular for those who are new in > the TC: > > - The OASIS TC process defines three levels of approval: Committee > Specification Drafts (CSD), Committee Specifications (CS), and OASIS > standards. While it of course should the objective of a TC to get > OASIS standard approvals for the specifications it develops, a TC may > decide to advance a particular specification only to the CSD or CS level. > - It takes a minimum of about two months to advance a CSD to a CS, and > a minimum of about three months to advance a CS to an OASIS standard. > - There is an obligation to submit all ODF OASIS standards to ISO. The > ISO standardization process itself takes at least 6 months. > - Each specification document requires editorial work (including > clarifying last details and issues). A rough estimate could be that for > two months specification work, 1 month editorial work is required. > - Our TC process is member driven: Individual TC members may propose > enhancements for ODF, but they are also responsible for advancing their > proposals into a state where enough details are specified so that the > proposals can be voted on and integrated into the specification by the > TC editors. Which means that it is to a large degree under the control > of the TC members themselves when an enhancement is ready to be > considered for integration into the ODF specification. > > Considering all this, it is realistic to assume that we cannot release > OASIS standards more frequently than every two years, but even when we would only have a window of about 6 months where we can add enhancements into a specification document. > > What I'm therefore suggesting is that we > > a) make use of the CSD and CS levels of approval > b) adopt a time-boxed or "train model" where we have previously agreed > dates where we aim to have CSDs ready, and where we accept for a CSD > only what is ready by when. > c) decide for each CSD individually whether we want to get a higher level of approval or public reviews. > > How could this look like in practice? > > We may agree that we deliver CSDs every 6 months. This would mean that we would have a phase of 4 months open development where we integrate all proposals that are ready to be integrated, which means that they are detailed enough to be integrated and have been approved. After this 4 months, we would have a phase of two months where the proposals get integrated into the draft. We when vote on the draft, and most likely get a CSD that is published. After the CSD approval, we start working on the next CSD in the same way. > > When a CSD has been approved, we also discuss and agree whether we want to start a 30-day public review for the draft, and ask for approval as a > CS. But even if we do so, we would continue our work on the next CSD. > > Where are a lot of things to consider for this decision: For instance > how much new content we have in the specification. Or whether we have > other public reviews running. Or where we are in the approval process of > previous specifications. For this reason, it appears reasonable to not > set up any rules for this in advance, but to just use the CSD approvals > as checkpoints, and to decide individually for each CSD how to proceed. > > When we decide to advance a CSD to a CS and got the CS approval, we > would then discuss and decide whether want to advance it to an OASIS > standard. > > Where may of course be features that need more than four months to be > developed. For these, we may set up sub committees, and may consider the > deliverable of the sub committee as a proposal that we treat the same > way as the other proposals. > > Where are a lot of advantages this model has compared to the one we used > for ODF 1.2: > > - Enhancements and new features are available on CSD level in less than > 6 months. > - Vendors may implement CSDs instead of extended conforming documents with vendor specific extensions. This > -- provides a higher level of interoperability between ODF > implementations that go beyond the last approved OASIS standard > -- provides transparency to users > - The "rush hour" we get when we are getting closer to the end of a > feature definition phase is avoided, because if a proposal misses a specific CSD, the next opportunity is already 6 months later. > - Assuming that we get comments in particular for new features, we get a > better distribution of comments by having many "small" public reviews rather than a single "large" public review. > > Feedback to these suggestions is of course very welcome. I also did present these ideas at the last OOoCon. The feedback I got there from users of the ODF specification was positive. The slides of the presentation are available here: > > http://www.ooocon.org/index.php/ooocon/2010/paper/view/233 > > Best regards, and best wishes for the holiday season. > > Michael > > -- > Michael Brauer | Oracle Office Development > Phone: +49 40 23646 500 > Oracle Office GBU > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 Hamburg > > ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG > Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München > Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603 > > Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. > Rijnzathe 6, 3454PV De Meern, Niederlande > Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 > Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]