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] Preparing ballot text -- I need your CT links

Hi Robin,

Nothing is really adopted in any formal sense until it is written up and included in the specification, and even then it requires a series of votes to advance it from a Committee Draft to a Committee Specification to an OASIS Standard.  On the middle vote the specification will require 2/3 approval of TC members.  That ultimately is what ensures that our published work has a high degree of consensus.

What the present vote accomplishes is to focus our efforts toward removing the imperfections from a single approach rather than trying to simultaneously remove the imperfections from three different approaches.  But until we have an actual specification to vote on, this is a preliminary step, but not the formal adoption of any specification material.



Robin LaFontaine <robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com> wrote on 07/25/2012 04:46:34 AM:

> From: Robin LaFontaine <robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com>

> To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com,
> Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Date: 07/25/2012 04:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [office] Preparing ballot text -- I need your CT links
> Rob,
> 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 solution.
> 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 these lines:
> "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 work."
> 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.
> Robin
> On 23/07/2012 19:07, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 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)
> 1) ECT
> 2) GCT
> 3) MCT
> 4) None of the above
> 5) Abstain
> 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 provided.
> Please send along the links before end of day Tuesday.
> Thanks!
> -Rob

> --
> -- -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  "Experts in information change"
> T: +44 1684 592 144  E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com      
> Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]