RE: [oiic-formation-discuss] The importance to users of documents lookingthe same

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Hurley, Garry \(L&I - OIT\)" <ghurley@state.pa.us>
wrote on 06/19/2008 12:04:16 AM:

> Paul,
> 
> I don't want to get on your bad side here, but CDRF specifications
> sound like they are beyond the scope of this discussion list, which
> was, I thought, to determine whether or not a TC needed to be formed
> and to write a charter.  Suggesting that the TC consult the CDRF
> specifications as a guideline is all we should really do at this 
> point - unless we decide that no TC needs to be formed, then I 
> assume the standards process would fall upon the shoulders of OASIS
> in general.  Rob, am I off-base here?
> 

If there is consensus to make CDRF based profiles,
then we would add that to the list of deliverables.  If there was
consensus to require only CDRF based profiles, then we would add that restriction
to the scope statement.  But I'm not hearing consensus on either of
those.  

What I'm hearing is that some people think that CDRF
is interesting and may be applicable, but are convinced.  We could
handle this by doing nothing until such time as there is a consensus to
commit to that work or to restrict the TC in that way.

Another possibility is to add a deliverable that calls
for the creation of a report on the applicability of CDRF to ODF profiles.
 Maybe there is consensus that this should be formally studied?  Maybe
Paul wants to contribute a draft of this report to the TC?

.
.
.

> 
> Rob, or anyone for that matter, do you disagree that we need a TC?
 
> Do you agree or disagree that we need to have some guidelines for
> them to follow?  I saw a proposed skeleton for guidelines put
forth 
> earlier.  I put forth several tasks earlier.  I humbly suggest
we 
> all decide what additional tasks we are going to place on the list
for the TC.
> 

Well, I proposed the new TC, so I clearly think it
is needed.

-Rob