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

2008/6/14 Matthew Reingold <matthewreingold@gmail.com>:
> Dave,
> I think this is being taken slightly out of proportion.

You may Matthew. I don't.
I want clarity and mutual  understanding.
IMHO that's what good standards are all about.

> 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.

Note my alliance. None. I don't have any politics here.

 I work for UL, and even there we have
> to write things in a specific format for our standards as well.

I really don't care about the format. Rob seems to live
and breathe them. I'm happy to leave formatting
this groups output to him.
I do presume that delivering groups are capable of
explaining their deliverable. Seems not to be the case here.
I also want this groups output to be clear and concise.

>> 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.

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of that?
Other TC's may be unclear so we should follow their bad example?
is that the assumption?
A charter isn't important?

> I am not Rob, but if you notice in other threads we've been trying to define
> this.

The point I'm trying to obtain clarity on is the confusion between Michaels
comment (or my interpretation of it perhaps) and Robs confusing response.

It seems like both, actually. So its neither yours nor Michaels
> separately, it is both together.

either 'how to implement ODF' or
'how to implement tests for compliance/interop'

I haven't seen that discussed Matthew. Have you
(other than by assumption from Rob/Michael)

The talks about "atomic test" which I
> presume means developer based and the acid test for consumers and
> developers.

Possibly due to my background I'm happy with that.
My understandng:

A test, defined by this groups follow on, which explicitly tests
on facet (para perhaps) of the ODF standard and produces
a binary result, pass or fail.

Hopefully implemented by some follow on implementation group,
Open source, available in source form, for anyone to use.

But tha'ts just my understanding of the term.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a glossary reached by consensus.


Dave Pawson

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