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] The importance to users of documents lookingthe same

"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.


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