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

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
wrote on 06/14/2008 01:27:11 PM:

> 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).
> 

Remember, this is a question that is answered in the
charter of the proposed TC.  Since we are not the TC (the TC does
not yet exist) and the TC does not produce the charter (the charter is
made before the TC is formed) the phrase should be read in that context.
 I can so no other reasonable way of reading it.

> >
> > 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.
> 
> 

I'm suggesting that working in an terminological vacuum
may not be the best way to proceed.  Look at some other OASIS TC charters,
see what the custom is.  

> 
> >> 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.
> 

It is within reason to discuss both, I believe.  The
later is most certainly in scope -- any test requirements documents needs
to be mindful of implementors of the test requirements.  However,
the former definition, which Michael mentions, is what I had in mind when
drafting the initial scope statement.  But although I see the need
for such "guides for ODF implementors" we might want that to
be a function of the ODF TC.  They have certainly established a precedent
for such work with the Accessibility Guidelines.

> >
> > 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, thedirection
> > 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.
> 

And you, Dave, refuse to look at other OASIS TC charters,
even though I say they clearly establish the form and custom of an OASIS
TC charter.  

Remember, as discussion leader, I'm trying to read
and respond to dozens of messages on this list.  You are only trying
to define "the anticipated audience or users of the work" to
your own satisfaction.  There are far more important thing for us
to be working on, and my time and patience is not infinite.  So rather
than persisting to absorb my time with questions of this sort, could you
at least try to answer to them yourself with the resources I have indicated?
 Then you can post a summary of what you've found to the list, if
you think others would be interested.

Thanks,

-Rob