Re: [office] The public review has ended. What next?

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

On 03.03.2011 14:41, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

OF6065A35E.05CE240F-ON85257848.00482F31-85257848.004ADBE9@lotus.com" type="cite">

Michael Brauer <michael.brauer@oracle.com> wrote on 03/03/2011 04:29:31 
AM:

  

So, since the CSD07/CSPRD03 public review was a follow-up public 
review, it was limited in scope to the changes we made since the 
last public review. It is also limited in time to the start and the 
end of the public review.

After having a closer look at the above issues, none seems to be in 
the submitted during the public review, and is within its scope. 
This shall not mean that we should not reolve them, but only that we
are not bound to the 7-day  waiting period before we can request 
the  CS ballot, and that we do not need a disposition report for PRD03.

    

The rules are not very clear in this.

Section 3.2 says:

"The initial public review of a public review draft must take place for a 
minimum of 30 days, and any subsequent reviews must be held for a minimum 
of 15 days. 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."

The odd part of that is the phrase "shall be limited in scope...".  Who is 
that a requirement on?  The public?  Or us? 
  

The requirement is for all of us. I think it is as simple that just only the changes we made are under review. That is, something we did not change is not under review. The following is taken from the last PR announcement:

Public Review Period:  The public review starts today,
14 February 2011 and ends 01 March 2011. The specification
was previously submitted for a 60-day public review on
8 July 2010, and for 15-day public review on 17 December
2010 [2]. This 15-day review is limited in scope to changes
made from the previous review of 17 December 2010. All
changes are highlighted in the diff-marked PDF files [3].

I read this that a comment regarding something we did not change simply is not a valid comment in regard to the the PR.

OF6065A35E.05CE240F-ON85257848.00482F31-85257848.004ADBE9@lotus.com" type="cite">

And section 3.3 says:

"After the public review, the TC may approve the Committee Specification 
Draft as a Committee Specification or the Committee Note Draft as a 
Committee Note. If any comments have been received during the most recent 
Public Review period, that vote may not commence any earlier than 7 days 
after the last day of that Public Review."

So it says "if any comments have been received during the most recent 
Public Review..." not "if any comments in scope have been received..."
  

Yes, but what sense would it make to restrict a public review in scope in section 3.2 if any comment would trigger the 7 day waiting period?

Actually 3.2 also states:

"Comments from non-TC Members must be collected via the TC's archived public comment facility; comments made through any other means (unless made by a TC Member via the TC email list) shall not be accepted."

Which means, it says how comments are collected. But it does not say that every mail on the comment mailing list is a comment. It also says that comments from TC members are collected via the TC email list. But we have never thought of including every mail that is sent to that list during a public review into the disposition report.

So, my reading of 3.2 is that the term "comment" is not the same as a "mail submitted to the comment list". Comments are mails send to the comment mailing (or TC mailing list) whose subject is what is under public review.

OF6065A35E.05CE240F-ON85257848.00482F31-85257848.004ADBE9@lotus.com" type="cite">

I think we generally receive comments, and some are in scope, and some are 
not.  But whether any comment triggers the 7-day delay, or whether only 
"in scope" comments trigger that, is not clear to me.  I think "any" could 
refer to "in scope" and "out of scope" comments.  But I could be wrong...
  

See above. I think the term "comment" does not simply denote a mail on the comment mailing list.

OF6065A35E.05CE240F-ON85257848.00482F31-85257848.004ADBE9@lotus.com" type="cite">

In any case, who decides whether a comment is in scope or note? I think 
  

Since we are required to mark the changes, I think the key is whether something is marked as changed or not. But you are right that where are cases that are difficult to decide. Anyway, there are a lot of cases where it is clear that a comment is not in scope. For instance OFFICE-3671 refers to an attribute where we did not change a single letter of its description. And for such comments, I suggest that we don't include it into the disposition report, or at least add a note that we include it although it is out of scope.

OF6065A35E.05CE240F-ON85257848.00482F31-85257848.004ADBE9@lotus.com" type="cite">

that determination is best made by the consensus of the TC where possible, 
or a vote if necessary.  So I'd still recommend that discuss this on 
Monday and record our decision in the minutes as a "disposition of 
comments report", even if we simply list the comments received and say for 
each one, "Not in scope of public review" or "Deferred to ODF 1.2 Errata 
01" or "TC member proposal for ODF 1.3" or similar.
  

I didn't suggest to not do so. All I'm suggesting is that we take the OASIS rules serious here, and exclude or at least mark issues that are clearly out of scope.

Michael

OF6065A35E.05CE240F-ON85257848.00482F31-85257848.004ADBE9@lotus.com" type="cite">

We could also seek clarification from OASIS on this, but my guess is that 
would take more than 7 days.

-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 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

Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment