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

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

2008/6/15 Shawn <sgrover@open2space.com>:

> I feel I am out of my depths with this part of the discussion, but there
> seems to be one little point I think is being overlooked.
>
> This discussion list - as it stands right this moment, is only defining the
> framework/charter for which the official TC (once chosen/elected/formed)
> will use to fill in a lot of the blanks.
>
> We seem to be getting confused between forming the charter, and solving the
> goals of the TC before the TC is formed.

I'm probably as guilty as anyone there Shawn. I prefer to solve problems
than talk about them. Equally I want the charter to have realistic goals
(despite the politics), hence my debate over testing visual items.

If the 'charter' given to us is unclear (It is to me), then how can we
in turn write a clear charter for the actual TC?


The para.
source http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00001.html
(2.)3.	To produce a set of implementation guidelines;

I thought this might mean guidelines on how to "implement tests"

Michael, quoting him in context, says

<quote>What I'm missing a little bit is to provide guidance for implementors.
Simply speaking, the best way to achieve interoperability between ODF
applications is that these application implement as many of ODF as
possible and reasonable for the specific application, and with as little
bugs as possible. Tests are helpful to measure the quality of an
implementation, but they don't help implementors with the implementation
itself.

So far we have suggestion for tests, but we do not have suggestion how
we can help implementors in their implementation work.

It would probably be too simple to just put an "ODF Implementors
Guidelines" on the list of deliverables, since we don't know if
implementors have issues with implementing ODF, and if so where. So,
preparing guidelines, which is a huge effort, without knowing where the
issues are has the risk we are doing something no one needs. But what
about having a mailing list or a forum at opendocument.xml.org that the
oiic TC moderates and that could be used as input for guidelines.

That is:

7) A mailing list or forum for implementors that is moderated by this TC
8) Optionally an implementation guideline document that summarizes
important guidelines discussed in the mailing list or forum.
</quote>

Whilst he is not explicit, he seems to be interpreting this along the lines
of
"produce guidelines on how to implement ODF". He then backs off
by suggesting the TC manage a list to do same.

 I wholly disagree with this as an objective for the forthcoming TC.


When I ask our chair (real or not Paul!) to ask for clarification
he objects, refuses, backs away whatever you want to call it.

How can we be clear when the document guiding us is unclear (to me).

If others interpret the original phrase differently, please speak up.
Or if you agree with my interpretation, please say so and lets move on.

regards




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