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] Proposed Use case -- Interoperability in vertical and horizontal ODF markets

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Simon Calderson <caldersons@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am on occasion guilty of error. When error is called to my
>> attention, I retract or amend my prior statement.
> Ok, good.
>> > Your use case is being discussed,
>> Neither its technical nor its legal merit has been discussed thus far
>> by anyone but me.
> This is incorrect. The legal merits have been discussed and noted as out-of-scope by correspondents, including myself and OASIS's own lawyer. You are free to disagree with that, but *they have been discussed*.
I would appreciate a link to the relevant discussion because because
any such argument that my proposals have been out of scope is plainly
erronenous as a matter of law. You speak of a discussion I have not
read and in the sea of posts in this meeting, a mere date is
insufficient identification of a discussion.

>Your use case's technical merits have also been discussed, time and again.

Not in the thread in which I made the use case proposal, this thread,
other than my own discussion of it.

I have compared your claims to the technical provisions of CDRF on
numerous occasions (6/20, for example, twice) which you have been
unable to respond to, others have also examined them (e.g., Sander,
Dave P). In particular, you have not responded to the basic issue of
ODF-emitting agents creating content a-priori suitable for a
sub-profile conforming application..

That is too vague to respond to, but it smells like an argument that
the broken ODF tail must wag the OIIC profiles dog.  Any profile work
done on this TC must satisfy the legal and technical requirements for
a standard. ODF itself does not satisfy such requirements. Any profile
work on this TC must break compatibility with ODF. This goes to the
very issue of whether a new TC to do the profile-related work is
legally appropriate. If the OIIC TC's profile-related work does not
break compatibility with the existing ODF standard, then the only
proper place for such work is the ODF TC or a subcomittee thereof.

My use case's technical merits have not been discussed in the thread
in which I made the proposal. Mere dates are an insufficient means for
me to find the discussions you referred to and your description of
what I have not responded to is not sufficient for me to respond here.

> I look forward to your retractions in these matters.

If I have made error I will retract without any emotional qualms about
doing so. My quest is for truth and real solutions to real problems,
not for wasting time trying to defend the indefensible.

>> I note that you do not yourself respond to the technical or legal merits of
>> my use case proposal
> As noted above and in previous e-mail, I have, on multiple occasions.

If you did so in the thread in which my use case proposal was made,
something went awry in transmission; I did not receive it.

> and you have chosen not to respond.

I have often chosen not to respond to posts that have neither
technical nor nor legal merit. I have seen no post by you yet that had
either of those characteristics. If you direct me to your posts that
you believe do have technical or legal merit, I will review them. But
I need better directions to their location than a date a post was made
or a mere claim that such posts were made. I decline to participate in
the mismanagement of this meeting, without so much as an official
agenda for discussions or an official record of agreements reached. I
have abandoned any goal of reading all posts to this list before the
close of this meeting, even all posts that respond to my posts. This
is a mob, not a meeting..

> I look forward to your retraction in this matter also.

If you have any informed reason for requesting my retraction of my use
case proposal, this is the correct thread in which to state any
specific criticism of it. But straw man argumentation that avoids
discussing the merits of my proposal and posts along with vague
references to posts made elsewhere without even identification of the
thread are not how you get a retraction from me. I am not going to
waste precious time searching for unidentified needles in a haystack.

Best regards,

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)

Universal Interoperability Council

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