Re: Fw: [office] ODF v1.2 submission for OS ballot

[Michael Brauer <michael.brauer@oracle.com>]

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> "Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca> wrote on 01/02/2011 
> 01:18:07 PM:
> 
>> Some of the comments on the JIRA issues state
>> "The comment is not in scope of the PRD02 public review."
>>
>> It is not quite clear to me what "in the scope of PRD02 public review"
>> means. There are clearly some parts of the document that were not since
>> the last review but whose meaning or interpretation has changed due to
>> changes elsewhere.
>>
>> For example OFFICE-3583, the term in question there (escape angle) was
>> replaced elsewhere with a different term (leaving angle), so while there
>> was no change in this specific place the changes that were made
>> elsewhere have made this (in my mind) clearly an item in scope for this
>> review.
>>
> 
> The OASIS rule is:  "Changes made to a committee draft after a review must 
> be clearly identified in any subsequent review, and the subsequent review 
> shall be limited in scope to changes made in the previous review."
> 
> So the scope is limited to "changes made in the previous review".
> 
> However, I'd tend to read that broadly, to include explicit text changes 
> as well as those unchanged parts of the text whose interpretation has 
> changed based on the explicit text changes.

I agree to this, and when classifying the comments, I've tried to follow 
this approach. But for OFFICE-3583, this in my opinion does not apply. 
The interpretation of the two sentences that do contain the term "escape 
angle" did not change because we replaced the term "escape angle" with 
"leaving angle" in a third sentence.

Anyway, what's more important here is that the question whether or not 
an issue is marked as "in scope" doesn't has any impact on whether and 
when we resolve it. The purposes of the flag is only to enable counting 
and tracking of issues that are in scope. That's required, because a) if 
there are issues that are in scope we need to wait a week before we 
could request a CS ballot (but the actual number does not count), and b) 
we need to acknowledge only issues that are in scope. Of course, we may 
also care about other comments, but  even in this case, I strongly 
recommend to track things accordance with the OASIS rules.

Best regards, and a happy new year.

Michael


> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 | 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