Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiles: suggested use-cases

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 06/22/2008
10:02:41 AM:

> 
> I would rather see Rob respond to the technical merits of what I
> proposed rather than just asking for a check signed in blank. I'm
way
> behind on reading the email, but I have yet to see an objection to
my
> CDRF proposal that addresses its technical merit. I haven't seen
> anything from Rob yet that even implies that round-trip interop is
a
> goal we can agree on. Rob seems to be working very hard to avoid
> discussing the technical merit of any proposal that puts interop on
> the list of deliverables. He seems to want a check signed in blank
for
> the new TC without interop anywhere in the charter other than in the
> name of the TC.
> 
> Until we get agreement that interop goes on the list of deliverables
> and Rob starts talking about the technical  merits of interop
> proposals, I don't think we're going to make any progress. .
> 

Paul, I fail to see any technical content to your
proposal.  They appear to be merely defining the problem away without
doing anything to actually help implementors improve interoperability.
 In particular, using CDRF's conformance language would merely add
requirements that certain forms of document exchange be have certain interoperability
guarantees.  But merely adding a requirement that says "Thou
shalt be interoperable" does not in itself accomplish anything. We
would still be in the exact same boat.  I think you misperceive the
nature of interoperability, and the practical problems and equally practical
solutions that are needed to move us forward.  

I'm looking to form an ODF IIC TC in order to develop
the kinds of practical tools needed by ODF implementors (and others) to
improve conformance of  ODF documents and applications, and to improve
interoperability among them.  Those who are interested in this task
will join in this effort, and those who are not will ignore it.  I
see no sense in turning this into an "us versus them" battle.
 It is only "us" here.  Those who participate in the
effort already want to see interoperability improvements, so let's concentrate
on that rather than the unnecessary task of convincing them that such efforts
are necessary.

I know you desperately want interoperability improvements.
 But at times you remind me of a drowning swimming, grabbing and clinging
to his rescuer, risking the demise of both. I think we want the same things
here, Paul.  We already have the major vendors involved.  Trying
to turn this into a stick to be used against "big vendors" will
only backfire and ensure that the effort never occurs.

-Rob