OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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


I think this is being taken slightly out of proportion.

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:
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).

I have no objection to how it is worded.This doesn't mean I am feigning neutrality in saying that. I think we're getting on that level of more of a political issue than a logistics one. I work for UL, and even there we have to write things in a specific format for our standards as well. Plenty of people get confused on a minute by minute basis, let alone daily probably thousands of people a day. The wording of the expected audience is not as important as us having discussed who the audience is intended to be, which was in its own thread. It seems rather straightforward when we come the wording was released.
I'm not working on other charters. I'm trying to figure this one out.
And failing
to find much that is concrete.

Dave, irregardless of what we think, this is one Charter within all of Oasis. We are important in our own way, but we are structured off the basis off other TC's. Otherwise we'd have no guidelines, just a ton of people wishing to contribute with no direction.We're building off the basis of other TC's, just like new standards have their structure built off other standards that work well. We're not trying to reinvent the wheel here, I'd think.  It'd be another 3-4 weeks of that 90 days that would be lost minimum trying to say "what do we want to do" without an actual goal already set in mind.

I think I cut out part of what you said that I was trying to respond to here, but that was what I meant.

>> 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
Implementers of tests?
Which do you see as in scope for the charter we are writing.

I am not Rob, but if you notice in other threads we've been trying to define this. It seems like both, actually. So its neither yours nor Michaels separately, it is both together. The talks about "atomic test" which I presume means developer based and the acid test for consumers and developers. See this thread for that. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00189.html   - That is where such a discussion has been going around.

Matthew B Reingold
Please note: all opinions are my own and not representative of UL.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]