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 07:51:30 PM:

> 2008/6/19 Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>:
> >> "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 06/19/2008 05:59:20 PM:
> >> 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.
> >
> > No Rob. Read the process document. The statement
> > above is inaccurate.
> >
> > This group writes the charter.
> I just re-read that.
> Sorry Rob I misinterpreted your phrasing.

That's fine.  I'm far more intelligent when read slowly.

> Why would the TC need to recharter if they start out (and maybe even finish)
> working on 1.1... then 1.2 comes along? I don't see that as constrained
> by the process document?

It depends on where you put the statement.  If you have a scope statement that says the TC will work on ODF 1.1, and the scope says nothing about any other versions of ODF, then this could be interpreted as limiting the TC to work on ODF 1.1, and no other versions.  If we then tried to work on ODF 1.2 later, then we would be exceeded our charter.

That's one of the things that scope does, it sets the bounds of our activities.

We also asked to list our deliverables and estimated dates.  That's where I'd put the ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2 deliverables, sequenced in that order.  

So keep the scope general -- ODF (with no version stated) and have the deliverables give the detailed sequencing.


> Perhaps rather than argue over this, is it possible to include
> the TC 'duration' in the scope? If so, then it could be something
> like
> "compliance and interop on 1.1"
> then
> "review new versions for testability/interop as they are developed"
> I.e. to make it follow the main TC as it develops ODF.
> Most (if not all) W3C WGs have an obligation to pass
> their output through WAI pf group for accessibility checks.
> The IIC TC could act in a similar manner for the main ODF TC?
> As a sanity check on new material?

I believe we could oblige ourselves to track the ODF TC.  But I don't think we can oblige the existing ODF TC to consult with us.


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