[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next
Michael, A question on your scheduling: > > > 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. OK, but what would be the content of that OASIS standard? I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, it would be at the three prior CSD bundled up for that OASIS standard. Yes? Assume Jan. 1, 2011 the train starts up: 1st CSD - 6 months 2nd CSD - 12 months 3rd CSD - 18 months so isn't the sum of all three going into CS - 24 months? I think you imply as much but just wanted to be sure. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick PS: I do recognize that current OASIS mechanisms make collaboration with other standards organizations difficult but that isn't an issue we can resolve in this forum. On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 10:10 +0100, Michael Brauer wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for all the contributions to the discussion since yesterday. It > seems that all concerns that have been raised are regarding the > question whether or not we should encourage vendors to implement CSDs. > That's a very interesting discussion, but only one aspect of my > suggestions. I'm therefore interested to learn if there are other > concerns, or if you otherwise agree to the suggestions. > > Best regards > > Michael > > On 13.01.2011 11:39, Michael Brauer wrote: > > Dear TC members, > > > > thank you very much for the feedback to these suggestions. That is > > very helpful. I will answer to a few concerns on the mailing list, > > but would like to discuss this topic in one of our next TC calls. We > > are will start to work on ODF-Next very soon, and I think we need > > top agree on a schedule for our future work very soon. > > > > Best regards > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > On 17.12.2010 14:03, 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 > > > > > > > -- > > Oracle > > Michael Brauer | Oracle Office Development > > Phone: +49 40 23646 500 | | > > Oracle Office Global Business Unit > > > > 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 > > > > Green Oracle Oracle is committed to developing practices and > > products that help protect the environment > > -- > Oracle > Michael Brauer | Oracle Office Development > Phone: +49 40 23646 500 | | > Oracle Office Global Business Unit > > 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 > > Green Oracle Oracle is committed to developing practices and products > that help protect the environment
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]