Fw: responses to the received comments from the ODF 1.2 PAS Submission - status and request for guidance

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <ORWITT@de.ibm.com>]

Hi,

below you find Toshiko Kimura's response
to Francis Cave's requests.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann

--
Advisory Software Engineer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Deutschland 
Beim Strohhause 17 
20097 Hamburg 
Phone: +49-40-6389-1415 
E-Mail: orwitt@de.ibm.com 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzende
des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz 
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart,
HRB 243294 
----- Forwarded by Oliver-Rainer
Wittmann/Germany/IBM on 05.01.2015 11:02 -----

From:      
 Toshiko Kimura <kimura@itscj.ipsj.or.jp>
To:      
 "Francis Cave"
<francis@franciscave.com>
Cc:      
 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann/Germany/IBM@IBMDE,
"'OASIS OpenDocument TC List'" <office@lists.oasis-open.org>,
<jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
Date:      
 05.01.2015 04:35
Subject:    
   Re: responses
to the received comments from the ODF 1.2 PAS Submission - status and request
for guidance

---

Dear Francis and all,

> Should their responses be submitted in the comment form (presumably
in the right-most column of the comment form), 
> or should they be in a separate document (presumably making reference
to
> the Member Body Comment Number (left-most column of the comment form).

The right-most column of the comment form is normally used to indicate
proposed responses by PAS/FTP submitters.  I would suggest that the
form
is used.

> Lisa Rajchel has already advised that the GB comment on Part 2 is
out of scope for the BRM, 
>because it cannot be resolved by a change to the DIS text (and in any
>case has already been resolved by a successful petition to ITTF to
>retain the current edition of ISO/IEC 26300). Please could you confirm
>that this implies that only the Japanese comments are in scope for
the
>BRM?

> Although the GB comments may all be out of scope for the BRM, is the
OASIS ODF TC nevertheless expected to provide a form response to these
comments?

Yes, my understanding is the same as yours.  Lisa has stated in the
cover sheets of the JTC 1 documents of the summaries of voting as below.

As for the GB comments, I would suggest that OASIS response include the
current solution (retention of the two editions)  is satisfactory.

--------------------------
Part 1 and Part 3:
This document has received 100% approval with no negative votes. The
comments accompanying this ballot are forwarded to OASIS for review and
preparation of a response to all of the comments. This response document
is to be submitted to the JTC 1 Secretariat by 26 January 2015 for
circulation to JTC 1. A BRM will be held via teleconference on February
23, 2015 to address the 2nd Japanese comment contained herein and the
Japanese comments on Part 3. All other comments on parts 1, 2 and 3 will
be addressed in the OASIS response document but are not for discussion
at the BRM. Details concerning the BRM will be distributed shortly.

Part 2:
This document has received 100% approval with no negative votes The
comments accompanying this ballot are forwarded to OASIS for review and
preparation of a response to the comments. This response document is to
be
submitted to the JTC 1 Secretariat by 26 January 2015 for circulation to
JTC 1.
Once received, the Secretariat will forward the response document and text
to
ITTF for publication. The Secretariat does not believe that a BRM is required.
--------------------------

Best regards,

Toshiko Kimura
Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34



On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 15:03:17 -0000
"Francis Cave" <francis@franciscave.com> wrote:
> Dear Kimura-san
>  
> Could you please advise as to the correct procedure for the OASIS
ODF TC to make a formal submission of their responses to the ballot comments.
Should their responses be submitted in the comment form (presumably in
the right-most column of the comment form), or should they be in a separate
document (presumably making reference to the Member Body Comment Number
(left-most column of the comment form).
>  
> Lisa Rajchel has already advised that the GB comment on Part 2 is
out of scope for the BRM, because it cannot be resolved by a change to
the DIS text (and in any case has already been resolved by a successful
petition to ITTF to retain the current edition of ISO/IEC 26300). Please
could you confirm that this implies that only the Japanese comments are
in scope for the BRM?
>  
> Although the GB comments may all be out of scope for the BRM, is the
OASIS ODF TC nevertheless expected to provide a form response to these
comments?
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Francis
>  
>  
> Francis Cave
> Convenor, DIS 26300 BRM
> Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 6
>  
>  
> From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:ORWITT@de.ibm.com]
> Sent: 30 December 2014 07:51
> To: OASIS OpenDocument TC List; jamie.clark@oasis-open.org; Francis
Cave
> Subject: responses to the received comments from the ODF 1.2 PAS Submission
- status and request for guidance
>  
> Hi, 
> 
> status of OASIS ODF TC's work on its responses to the received comments
from the ODF 1.2 PAS Submission: 
> 
> The received comments from the ODF 1.2 PAS Submission are tracked
by corresponding JIRA issues - OFFICE-3865..3873 [1]. 
> The received comments GB1 for ODF 1.2 part 1, part 2 and part 3 are
tracked by a single JIRA issue - OFFICE-3872. 
> The received comments JP1 for ODF 1.2 part1, part 2 and part 3 are
tracked by a single JIRA issue - OFFICE-3865. 
> The TC's discussions are documented in the JIRA issues; further details
could be found on the TC's mailing list. 
> The responses on which the TC had agreed are given as resolutions
of these JIRA issues. 
> Until now responses are ready except for JP5. 
> 
> 
> Francis and/or Jamie, could you please provide some guidance regarding
the delivery of the responses: 
> Is there any expected form how JTC1 wants to receive the responses?
> Is it correct that the responses will be delivered from OASIS to JTC1
via Jamie? 
> Is a formal vote from the TC on the response document needed? 
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help and support. 
> 
> [1] <https://issues.oasis-open.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20OFFICE%20AND%20text%20~%20%22PAS%20Comment%22%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC>https://issues.oasis-open.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20OFFICE%20AND%20text%20~%20%22PAS%20Comment%22%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20ASC
> 
> 
> 
> Mit freundlichen Grusen / Best regards
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
> 
> --
> Advisory Software Engineer
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> IBM Deutschland 
> Beim Strohhause 17 
> 20097 Hamburg 
> Phone: +49-40-6389-1415 
> E-Mail: orwitt@de.ibm.com 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzende des
Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz 
> Geschaftsfuhrung: Dirk Wittkopp
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart,
HRB 243294 
>