Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] (1)(d) A list of deliverables, with projectedcompletion dates.

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
wrote on 06/13/2008 02:29:15 AM:

> 2008/6/12  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> >
> > Another piece I suggest we start working on:  "(1)(d)
A list of
> > deliverables, with projected completion dates".
> >
> > However, I'd suggest we discuss this as if it said "a list
of prioritized
> > list deliverables".  From a practical standpoint, it
is impossible to
> > project completion dates until we have a good idea who will be
joining the
> > proposed TC.  Those who do line up to join the TC can huddle
before we
> > submit the charter and turn the prioritization into projected
dates.
> >
> > So far I've heard the following items (in no particular order)
> >
> > 1) A conformance test of ODF documents and implementations, i.e.,
test the
> > formal shall's and should's, etc.
> 
> What do you mean by this Rob?
> I don't understand it sufficiently.
> 
> > 2) An Acid-style test of ODF implementations,
i.e., feature and
> > rendering-oriented, essentially highlighting ODF features that
are not
> > widely implemented (or implemented correctly) but are desired
(by whom???)
> > 3) A comprehensive test suite of atomic (single feature) tests
> 
> Clarification. Statement of (atomic) test requirements, mapped against
> the ODF standard, version (TBC)
> 
> > 4) A formal profile of ODF
> 
> Suggest for 3,4,6 these are premature and not our job.
> Deliverable: A list of profiles, including a precise definition.
> (We then need a firm definition of a profile)
> 
> 
> > 7) A report on best practices for authoring portable documents
> (v.low priority)
> > 8) A periodic interoperability report on the state of ODF interoperability,
> > with specific recommendations for implementors.
> 
> This group will be disbanded by then. The task needs to be put back
> to the main TC. Inappropriate, other than as a recommendation, together
> with a reason for it, wrt our audience.
> 
> 
> >
> > What did I miss?
> 
> Basically traceability.
> The rationale is to stop Fred and Mary introducing tests that their
> implementation passes
> and nobody else does. No trace, no test is the logic. Any test failure
> should be traceable
> back to an ODF requirement.
> 
> 

Those are all good refinement points. We'll obviously
take an editorial pass to make the charter crisper.  But I'm looking
to see whether there are any big chunks missing from the TC's list of deliverables.
 I'd prefer to take it top-down rather than get lost in the mud.  They'll
be time to get lost in the mud later.

-Rob