office message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: responses to the received comments from the ODF 1.2 PAS Submission - status and request for guidance
- From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <ORWITT@de.ibm.com>
- To: Toshiko Kimura <kimura@itscj.ipsj.or.jp>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:20:45 +0100
Dear Kimura-san,
thx again for the fast response and
the confirmation.
For completeness I will start to fill
out all comment documents.
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
From:
Toshiko Kimura <kimura@itscj.ipsj.or.jp>
To:
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
Cc:
"Francis Cave"
<francis@franciscave.com>, jamie.clark@oasis-open.org, "'OASIS
OpenDocument TC List'" <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
06.01.2015 01:54
Subject:
Re: responses
to the received comments from the ODF 1.2 PAS Submission - status and request
for guidance
Dear Mr. Wittmann,
Yes, please fill out your responses in the column of "Observations
of
the secretariat".
The form is an ISO's default form. In JTC 1, usually, proposers or
project editors prepare disposition of comments.
Best regards,
Toshiko Kimura
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 12:04:56 +0100
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <ORWITT@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> Dear Kimura-san,
>
> thanks for the fast response.
>
> just to be sure:
> The heading of the right-most column of the comment files is "Observations
of the secretariat".
> Nevertheless, we (OASIS ODF TC) shall provide our responses to the
comments in this column.
> Right?
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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><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
> >
>
>
>
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]