Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Level of detail needed in a TC Charter

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/6/14  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
>
> "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 06/14/2008 03:07:15 AM:
>
>>
>> Request please Rob.
>>
>> Go back to the people who wrote this fluff and ask them for a
>> definition/clarification.
>>
>
> Surely you jest.

No, or I wouldn't ask.

  Are you saying that you are unable to understand the
> meaning of the phrase "the anticipated audience or users of the work"?  Not
> everything in the charter is going to be reduced to the level of Whitehead's
> Principia Mathematica.  The consumers of the the charter are people.  We can
> assume basic facility with understanding language in context.

You don't need Pauls background to see the holes in that phrase.
The following are questions btw.
"The work" == the charter we write?
Anticipated == anticipated by this group? The TC to be? who
Audience or users == ... I can guess. Should I? Should we?
  Go write a document. Its for users.
  We can all interpret it. Differently.

If it's so clear to you how about spelling out your understanding and
see if you gain agreement
(not that I've seen any call for consensus as yet).

>
> Again, I suggest you take any of the dozens of existing OASIS TC's and look
> at their charters for an indication of customary level of precision and
> detail.

I'm not working on other charters. I'm trying to figure this one out.
And failing
to find much that is concrete.



>> Is this TC expected to provide guidelines for implementers of ODF
>> or guidelines for those implementing tests?
>>
>
> The first "i" in IIC is for Implementation.  This refers to the
> implementation of the base standard, here being ODF.

>
> So it is within reason to discuss this as part of an ODF IIC discussion.


Which 'this' Rob? My interpretation or Michaels! Please answer my
question above?
ODF implementations
or
Implementers of tests?
Which do you see as in scope for the charter we are writing.

>
> I'm hearing that you don't like the idea, and Michael likes the idea.  So we
> continue to discuss.  It is not the end of the world.

I'd discuss it if I understood what is wanted.



>
>>
>> It is really silly to expect us and the following TC to work in the dark
>> without recourse to the source of our direction. Pure C19.
>>
>
> Source of direction?  The initial proposal was posted with the Call for
> Participation, here:
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00001.html
>
> The subscribers to that proposal are listed.  Other than that, the direction
> of this discussion appears to beyond any single person's control.


Sequence.
Rob Weir, robert_weir@us.ibm.com, IBM
Charles-H. Schulz, charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com , Ars Aperta
Don Harbison, donald_harbison@us.ibm.com IBM
Alan Clark, aclark@novell.com, Novell

wrote a document. Hopefully they both approve it and understand it.
This group gets involved.
A member (me) queries a definition.
The chair shrugs his shoulders and says that's it. Take it or leave it,
It's obvious what it means.

It is not Rob.


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk