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

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Michael Brauer <michael.brauer@oracle.com> wrote on 03/03/2011 09:36:17 
AM:

> 
> See above. I think the term "comment" does not simply denote a mail 
> on the comment mailing list.
> 
> In any case, who decides whether a comment is in scope or note? I think 
> 

This is a fair point.  For example, when I transfer posts from the 
office-comment list to JIRA, I regularly filter out items that I do not 
consider to be "comments", specifically:

1) Things that do not refer to the standard at all, e.g., "technical 
support" questions on how to recover a corrupt file in their word 
processor.  I don't require that they mention a specific clause in the 
standard, or even that they mention a specific version of the standard. 
But if the post is not related to the specification at all, I don't 
transcribe it. 

2) Posts from TC members.  For example, sometimes Patrick posts a 
follow-up question to seek clarification.  I don't transcribe Patrick's 
question but I do transcribe any non-member response.  This is justified 
since the rules say that TC member comments should come via the TC's 
mailing list, not the comment list.

However, I do not make any judgement as to whether the comment is in scope 
of a public review.  I transcribe all comments.


So the taxonomy (in my mind) is this:

Posts:  includes off-topic messages, technical support questions, member 
posts and comments

Comments: some comments are 'during' the public review, some comments are 
'in scope' of the public review, some are both and some are neither.

Disposition report: reports disposition of all comments that are 'during' 
the public review, regardless of whether they are in scope or not.

However, you raise the excellent point, which is what is the purpose of 
the scope at all?  The process doesn't seem to treat in-scope or 
out-of-scope comments any differently.

-Rob