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] Which is definitive odf?

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 06/19/2008 05:59:20 PM:

> 2008/6/19  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> >
> > I don't think ISO status has any relationship to interoperability or
> > conformance.  In fact, the most-commonly used ODF version today is ODF 1.1,
> > which is not an ISO standard.
> >
> > In the end, I think choosing the ODF version is a "privilege of membership"
> > for those who actually join the proposed TC.  I don't think we can expect
> > for example, that a TC formed mainly of ODF 1.1-supporting implementors and
> > users will want to target ODF 1.2 first.  Similarly, a TC with mainly ODF
> > 1.2 implementors/users represented would not want to target ODF 1.1.  We
> > really need to see the composition of the proposed TC to answer this
> > question.  The work of the TC must be relevant to its members.  Otherwise,
> > why would they invest the time to serve on it?
> In which case I'd prefer this group to define a version of ODF to be
> used.  Leaving it to the TC risks too much politics.
> If 1.1 is the current stable Oasis release that would make most sense.
> Unless 1.2 is nearing release by the time the TC starts work.

I don't think we want this in the scope statement.  If the scope of the TC is to work with ODF 1.1, then we would need a new TC, or to recharter in order to ever work with ODF 1.2.  That would be silly.

We probably don't want to put it in the goals section that our goal is to improve interop with ODF 1.1.  Our goal statement should encompass everything we want to do.

But I could certainly seeing our list of deliverables call out an ODF 1.1-specific conformance and interop requirements docs and test suites.  We could also list ODF 1.2-specific ones as well and make the ordering clear when we give the estimated dates.

Stated differently, does anyone doubt that the same OIIC TC could work on ODF 1.1 for some things (like test suites) while also working on other things for ODF 1.2 (like providing pre-approval feedback to the TC)?  I think that would be the optimal mode of operation, if we had enough interested parties.  We could even divide up these tasks into different subcommittees.  We obviously don't want to over-commit, but I also don't want to prematurely force us into a single-threaded work plan.

You say, "Leaving it to the TC risks too much politics."  I say "Leaving it to the TC means the people who will actually do the work will determine the order of the work".  Is that such a bad thing?  


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