Operational transformation was proven feasible in Google's Wave
technology, if you want a recent example of its use. The actual
history of operational transformation is a good bit older than that,
all with proven implementations.
What the select committee report suggested was that operational
transformations be specified for the limited case of change
tracking, leaving more exotic applications/extensions for some
The purpose of the proposed ballot is go get the TC out of study
mode and into full specification and testing mode with regard to *a*
change tracking proposal.
Note that I said "get the TC" into that mode.
NOT to assign work to particular members of the TC. That is the
entire TC needs to start working on *a* change tracking proposal.
I have disagreed in the past and will no doubt in the future
disagree with choices made by the TC on technical issues. That does
not mean that I should wait for others to do the work simply because
If the TC chooses MCT (which I think it should) and the *entire* TC
works on it following that choice, we satisfy any concerns with
testing long before it appears as a TC reviewed draft text.
That is to say, up to the point of decision, we have "our"
After a TC decision, there is only the TC's position. (Which it can
change at any point but we all need to be rowing in one direction,
at least some of the time.)
Aside to Rob: Let's proceed with the ballot as you indicated on
Hope you are having a great day!
On 07/25/2012 04:46 AM, Robin
I am clear about the choices but not so clear about the wording
of the proposal. As Chair of the ADC Subcommittee, I need to
point out to the TC that at this stage ECT and GCT have had
significant peer review but MCT has not yet had this review.
Therefore I would strongly advise the TC not to adopt MCT
without the proviso that it proves that it can work as a
To adopt a proposal with no specification (other than a
presentation) for a major area of ODF seems to be taking an
unjustifiable risk with a major standard.
MCT appeared on the scene with one proponent, and as such it was
difficult to justify further delay and SC work to include it in
the SC report. MCT now has a significant following, though it is
still not yet technically proven.
Perhaps a motion that would get wider consensus would be along
"The TC instructs the ADC SC to investigate fully the MCT
proposal over a period of at least six months but no more than
nine months and if at the end of that evaluation period the
major technical risks have been removed and prototypes
demonstrate that it will provide a better solution than the
other proposals, the TC will adopt it for inclusion in the next
version of ODF. The TC does this on the understanding that the
MCT proponents will provide a specification and support for this
That would I think be both more prudent and achieve more
consensus. I would of course step down as ADC SC chair so an
independent chair can be appointed.
On 23/07/2012 19:07, firstname.lastname@example.org
As discussed in
today's TC call I plan on starting a 7-day electronic ballot
on the change tracking proposals. I'd like to start the
ballot on Wednesday morning at the latest.
The choices in the ballot will
be (in alphabetical order)
4) None of the above
Proponents of the proposals are
invited to send me links that further describe their proposal
(list message, wiki, document, whatever). I don't want to put
words in anyone's mouth, so I'll only add links if they are
Please send along the links
before end of day Tuesday.
Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd "Experts in information change"
T: +44 1684 592 144 E: email@example.com
Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK
unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net