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

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

2008/6/16  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:

>> 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.


That is illogical Rob.

Discussion on the list is restricted to evaluating the interest in
proposing a new OASIS TC, and defining the proposal for one or more
new OASIS TCs. The list of subscribers to the discussion list shall be
available to all subscribers. The discussion list shall automatically
close 90 days after the Call For Participation is issued.

Thats from Oasis process. IMHO that's what we should be following, not
prior TC's.

Hence we should be defining the proposal, not blindly accepting the
content that the group of three wrote?

Or do you disagree with that?

regards




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