[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] The public review has ended. What next?
IIRC, what triggered the latest 15-day review and caused us to decide to forgo being grandfathered under the old OASIS rules, were comments that the TC said were "out of scope" for the last review period. But the TC also decided that those comments, from Bart pointing out places where the spec contradicted itself, were also deemed so important by the TC that we decided that they needed to be fixed before going to CSD. Discussing just 7 issues in Monday's meeting seems a worthwhile use of time even if we decide to defer all to ODF-Next or not fix them. Cherie ________________________________________ From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:18 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [office] The public review has ended. What next? Michael Brauer <email@example.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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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