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?

2008/6/20  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 06/20/2008 07:25:51 AM:
>> >
>> > 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.
>> Which wouldn't give the TC a version to do the compliance against.
>> Hence No Rob.
> I happen to agree with you that the TC should start with ODF 1.1, but that
> is a point I will argue with that TC.  I disagree with your statement that
> giving an ODF 1.1 document as a formal deliverable, with a date prior to any
> ODF 1.2 deliverable, "wouldn't give the TC a version to do the compliance
> against".

I didn't say "giving an ODF 1.1 document as a formal deliverable" ... did I?
I certainly don't want the TC to deliver "an ODF 1.1 document"
I want that version of the standard to be the one reviewed.

Your turn for misinterpretation?

Simple English.

1. The TC work on 1.1 as "the current Oasis standard"
   Review for Testability
   Generate Test spec
2. That bit now finished.
    See what state 1.2 is in.
   Having the experience of working with 1.1, they know what to look for.
   They can crawl 1.2 for untestable stuff and report on it, prior to
the main TC delivering 1.2, which when delivered, will hopefully be
testable (or at least more testable).
3. Having a stable 1.2
  our TC can now get to work on that :
   generate test spec

They aren't wasting time working on a moving target. (1.2)

That was my objection to the stated deliverable as I interpreted it.

> Although I wish we had agreement on this, unanimity is not a formal
> requirement.

You (hopefully) aren't in a position to override this group.


Dave Pawson

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