Re: [office] Preparing ballot text -- I need your CT links

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

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.

Regards,

-Rob


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  
   
> http://www.deltaxml.com
     
> Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN,
UK