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] ODF proposal standing rule

Michael Brauer <michael.brauer@oracle.com> wrote on 02/03/2011 07:19:18 

> we currently have a standing rule which covers how we work on 
> feature proposals.
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office
> We approved this standing rule before we had JIRA, and it is 
> tailored to the Wiki based work flow we had in place before we had JIRA.
> Since we agreed to use JIRA to work on feature proposal, it seems 
> appropriate to amend the standing rule. A proposal is below:

So the motion would be to replace the current standing rule with this:

> 1. Any TC member may propose a substantive addition, deletion or 
> change to the current working draft of the ODF specification by 
> submitting a Proposal. This standing rule does not apply to editorial 

So what does apply to editorial changes?

And do we want to state this as a requirement, e.g.,:

"Any substantive additions, deletions or changes to the ODF specification 
must be initiated by a TC member by submitting a Proposal" 

> 2. A TC member wishing to make a Proposal (the Proposer) should 
> first announce their intention to make a Proposal on the ODF TC's 
> mailing list or by adding a comment to a JIRA issue. Detail is not 
> needed at this point, but such notification is recommended in order 
> to let other interested TC members know that someone is working in 
> this area and to prevent duplication of effort. The proposer must 
> assign the issue to herself/himself, and must set the "fix for" 
> field to the target for which the proposal is aimed to be ready. The
> proposal will only be considered for that target if it contains 
> enough information for the TC editors to integrate it into the 
> specifications, and if no unresolved objections are raised in the JIRA 

Should we say something about a deadline for integration?  In other words, 
if a proposal is made, and a target is set, and the proposal has 
sufficient detail and no objections, is it OK if it is first submitted on 
the day before we have a CSD vote? I don't think this would be good, since 
that would give insufficient time for TC members to review or discuss the 
new proposal.

There are two ways we could handle this:

1) Always have a 1-week electronic ballot for CSD votes, and that provides 
the opportunity for TC members to raise objections to problems in new 


2) Require new proposals to be marked "resolved" at least one week before 
the CSD ballot, so comments can be made in JIRA and the proposal possibly 
improved before the CSD text is completed.

I think I prefer the second approach. The more we can make use of 
lightweight review and discussion mechanisms, like JIRA, the more 
efficient we are.  CSD ballots are relatively heavy weight, requiring a 
minimum of 1 week to review, and any serious problem found then causes 
several weeks of delay, especially of it is intended to be a PRD also. 

> 3. For all proposals, a JIRA issue must exist. If such an issue is 
> not existing at the time a proposal is made, the proposer must 
> create an issue. The Proposer then must add the information requested in
> the New Proposal Form on the ODF TC's wiki to the JIRA issue, with 
> details of the Proposal.

We should link to the proposal form, and see if we still agree it is 

Do we mean this proposal form:  

If so, we might want to edit it.  For example, some of the fields 
(proposer name, dates, etc.) are naturally tracked by JIRA.

> 4. When the Proposal is ready for broader discussion within the TC, 
> the Proposer must post a link to it to the TC's mailing list to 
> solicit feedback, or add an appropriate comment to the JIRA issue. 
> TC members can raise objections to a proposal by a "-1" comment, or 
> agreement by a "+1" comment.

Might also allow intermediate values per Apache voting rules:


> 5. The Proposer controls the content of the Proposal and the pace at
> which the Proposal advances towards approval. As it is discussed on 
> the mailing list or within the JIRA issue, TC members may propose 
> changes to the Proposal. However, only the Proposer, and those whom 
> he or she designates, may edit the proposal.

OK.  As we know, JIRA does not enforce this.  So we would need to be 
careful here.  When addressing public comments and defect reports we often 
had many people change the resolutions/proposals.  So we should have some 
way of distinguishing new feature proposals from an ordinary defect. Maybe 
have a component called "New Proposal"  or put "Proposal:" in the title?

> 6. When the Proposer wishes for the Proposal to be discussed in a TC
> meeting, he or she must notify the TC mailing list of this intent by
> the Wednesday prior to the Monday TC meeting in which he or she 
> wishes to discuss the Proposal, or by adding an appropriate comment 
> to the JIRA issue. If the agenda cannot accommodate this discussion 
> during the next TC meeting, the Chair(s) should ensure that the 
> discussion is scheduled for the next available TC meeting, with no 
> new notification by the Proposer needed. A Proposal may be discussed
> in multiple TC meetings.

I would remove this from the standing rule.  If we want, we could have a 
separate standing rule on the agenda, and how TC members can add items to 
the agenda for discussion in general.  But I don't think we want to 
require that all new proposals be discussed on a call.

> 7. When the completion of  a proposal has been announced, when the 
> proposal is detailed enough to be integrated into the specification,
> and when no objections are raised in the issue within one week, the 
> TC editors may integrate the proposal. Already integrated proposals 
> may be revised or amended by subsequent proposals. No Proposal shall
> be voted on unless it formally meets the definition of 
> "contribution" as defined by OASIS IPR Policy.

OK.  So this answers my question above about deadlines.  A proposal must 
be available for discussion one week prior to integration.  It would be 
good if we could say what that means in terms of a CSD ballot.  Maybe 
integration takes another week, so proposals must be finalized 2 weeks 
prior to a CSD target date?  Either that, or we take the CSD targets to 
mean "final date for proposals to be entered" and know that the actual CSD 
ballot would be 2 weeks later.

> 8. When objections are raised to a proposal, the Proposer may 
> request a vote to accept his or her Proposal. He or she must notify 
> the TC mailing list of this intent by the Wednesday prior to the 
> Monday TC meeting in which he or she wishes to have the vote. If the
> agenda cannot accommodate this vote during the next TC meeting, the 
> Chair(s) should ensure that the vote is scheduled for the next 
> available TC meeting, with no new notification by the Proposer 
> needed. Simple Majority Vote shall determine whether a Proposal is 
> approved or not.

I assume we could also resolve objections via an electronic ballot?  That 
would be slower than a vote on the next TC call, but faster than waiting 2 
weeks, if there was a holiday or the agenda at the next TC call as already 

> 9. When notifications mentions in this standing rule are made using 
> JIRA, the TC member that notifies should ensure that JIRA sends a 
> copy of the notification to the TC mailing. In doubt, a 
> notifications should be made on the TC mailing list.

I would encourage us to do everything possible in JIRA.  A note sent to 
the mailing list that is not connected to a JIRA issue will easily be 

We might also think about tracking agenda items on the wiki. 

For example, what if we had a wiki page called "Proposed TC Agenda Items". 
 We know that any TC  call will have certain formal agenda items, the 
roll-call, approval of agenda, minutes, etc.  We know that these take 
around 20 minutes.   But we could have TC members maintain a list of 
proposed agenda items on the wiki, each one naming a topic, a speaker, and 
a time estimate, and when we form the agenda each week, we could consult 
with that wiki page to fill out the official agenda according to the 
available time.


> Best regards
> Michael
> -- 
> [image removed] 
> 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
> [image removed] 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]