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?

It's also worth noting that if we want to have the TC operate under the same IPR rules as the ODF TC (and I agree we should) the charter shouldn't be needlessly broad, as the charter defines the zone of potenial  IPR obligation.  All things being equal, it's easier to get broad participation if that zone is no broader than needed to get the job done.  At the same time, it's important to have the scope be broad enough to be sure that all relevant TC member patents are in fact committed.
Sent by PDA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary McRae" [mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
Sent: 06/19/2008 03:59 PM AST
To: "'Dave Pawson'" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>; <oiic-formation-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [oiic-formation-discuss] Which is definitive odf?

Hi Dave,

  I'm sorry, but I don't exactly understand the question. I'm going to answer, but if I've answered the wrong question, just ask again :-)

A charter scope constrains the work of the TC to do only that work that falls within the scope's boundaries. The TC may not actually ever get to everything within scope, but they can't work on something outside the scope. So, if the Charter scope were to say "do whatever with ODF 1.1" and not mention anything about working with other versions (whether future or prior), anything other than ODF 1.1 would be out of scope. Typically charters would be worded to allow work on any/all versions, or may say something like: after the TC has completed its deliverables for ODF 1.1, it may undertake work on newer versions of ODF as they are produced by the TC ... of course the actual language would be wordsmithed, but hopefully that answers the question.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:52 PM
> To: oiic-formation-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; Mary P McRae
> Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Which is definitive odf?
> 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.
> 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?
> 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?
> Mary, is this format viable as an input to a TC formation?
> regards
> --
> Dave Pawson
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk

To unsubscribe, e-mail: oiic-formation-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: oiic-formation-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.  (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)

Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad Street, Boston, MA 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax: (617) 350-6878.  This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee.  It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at  (617) 350-6800 and notify the sender by electronic mail.  Please expunge this communication without making any copies.  Thank you for your cooperation.

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