Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Summary and Focus?

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"David Gerard" <dgerard@gmail.com>
wrote on 06/20/2008 08:03:34 PM:

> 2008/6/20  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> > jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com> wrote on 06/19/2008 11:45:35
PM:
> 
> >> How hands off or on would the ODF spec be to a rewriting?
Do you
> >> intend on coming up with these deliverable without touching
the spec
> >> even if the ODF TC is not very cooperative?
> 
> > Rewriting the ODF standard would be out of scope.  Or more
properly, if we
> > tried to put that into scope, I believe OASIS would balk at our
proposed
> > charter since it would then clearly overlap that of the existing
ODF TC's.
> > However I don't think rewriting the ODF spec is necessary to
meet our
> > deliverables.
> 
> 
> Would high-quality suggestions be off-limits in principle? Stuff that
> would help a lot and which makes sense in terms of ODF. I can see
> people working on interop thinking "you know, it's really annoying
> there's no way to say X."
> 
> 

Anyone can give suggestions on an OASIS standard.
 That is always permitted.  

But I hope everyone has noted (but maybe this was
missed in the traffic) that both chairs of the ODF TC (me an Michael Brauer)
have already expressed support for an OIIC TC.  I know of several
other members of the ODF TC and the ODF Adoption TC who are also enthusiastic
about it.  

Although the tin hat theory is that we all need to
carefully craft a charter in order to prevent the "big vendors"
from breaking ODF interop, the fact is that it has been the big vendors
who had the idea for the OIIC TC, who crafted the draft charter, and who
requested this discussion list from OASIS.  We didn't need to do that.
 We could have just gone to OASIS directly with the charter and not
had a public discussion at all.

So I would not lose too much hair worrying about how
to tell the ODF TC something.  You'll have ODF TC members on the OIIC
TC, and most likely at least one of its chairs as well.

-Rob