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] Thoughts on ODF-Next

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 12/17/2010 
02:46:46 PM:

> I think there is another matter of importance to recognize here.
> The production of CSDs is cumulative, not modular.  That is, every CSD 
> is produced has to incorporate the (current form) of features in 
> drafts and be for all four parts of ODF x.y assuming the ODF 1.2 
> is maintained.

Certainly, to the extent we remain as a single, multi-part standard, all 
parts need to go out for review together, even if any individual part has 
not changed.  This is not a huge problem.  It just is more work in putting 
together the review materials.

> Furthermore, the cumulative (or even incremental-only) change tracking 
> become nightmarish since, presumably, each CSD in the track model would
> incorporate entire new features. 

I don't see this as a particularly nightmarish.  How is it different than 
what we just did to put together the review materials for CSD 06? 
Remember, each 15-day review is only incremental, showing changes back to 
the previous public review.  We don't need to show all changes back to CSD 
01 (or whatever our initial 30-day review version was).

> I'm not sure how the subsequent public reviews in such a situation could 
> reduced to 15 days, if we are grafting in feature modules at each cut.

The process says the review is for a  "minimum of 15 days".  So the TC 
could vote to hold a longer review if there were additional review time 
were required. 

> Perhaps one might do effected parts only in some Public Reviews, but at 
> point we are back to having to do a full review series to put a set of
> drafts on the Committee Specification and Standard track.

I think every public review will need to have the complete specification 
under review.

> Maybe we need to take another look at modularization with supplements as
> well as the handling of extensions and the prospective movement of
> extensions from practice to standard.

I think modularization would improve things, but only if done right.  It 
is the old analysis question:  how do you maximize intra-module cohesion 
while at the same time reducing inter-module dependencies?  Parts 2 and 3 
are in relatively good shape.  But Part 1 is still very monolithic.  No 
matter what we do process-wise, an 850-page specification is going to be 
tough to edit, to review and to revise.  I suspect that modularization 
will also help implementors.


>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:27
> To: Patrick Durusau
> Cc: Michael Brauer; OpenDocument Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next
> [ ... ]
> On the other hand, a CSD/Public review does have overhead, both in the 
> length of the review, but also on the administrative checks.  Since the 
> initial review is the longer review (30-days), there is an advantage to 
> doing that as early as possible, to get that out of the way.  Of course, 

> once you've done that you have the burden of highlighting changes in 
> future CSDs.  But on balance I think we're better of to have a 
> review early.
> [ ... ] 

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