Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Proposed Use case -- Interoperability invertical and horizontal ODF markets

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 06/30/2008
11:14:15 AM:

> This mailing list is not just a mailing list. It is supposed to be
a
> meeting to decide whether a new TC is needed and if so to negotiate
an
> agreement as to its Charter. Mailing list consensus is legally
> irrelevant. The rules that apply here are the rules established by
the
> law governing standards work in organizations like OASIS.  That
is why
> I raise both legal and technical issues.
> 

Actually, Paul, this is a discussion list, and I'm
the discussion leader.  If this were a meeting, and I was the Chair,
you would have been ruled out of order a long time ago.

> 
> I have a proposal at the top of this thread that addresses my
> problems. I await discussion of its merits that that is responsive
to
> both its technical and legal merits. Thus far, I have seen no
> discussion by others of the technical or legal validity of the use
> case or principled discussion of reasons for omitting it from the
OIIC
> charter as a use case the TC is directed to provide solutions for.
> 

In general, lossless data exchange between ODF implementations,
even ones which implement different subsets of the ODF standard, is a reasonable
goal.  However, the statement that this can only be solved by CDRF,
or by profiles in general, is a debatable point.  I am suspicious
of silver bullets, especially when I feel that I am being rushed to put
them into a charter.  

> As to the length of my posts, when the choice is between brevity and
> effectively  communicating my position, I side with clarity.
I do not
> speak just to the people attending this meeting. I also speak to the
> record of this meeting which may be reviewed by others, such as
> judges, who much prefer understanding of the issues over brevity.
> 

The belief that brevity is at odds with communications
is erroneous. A concise statement of your opinions shows the clarity of
your thoughts as well as proper respect for the reader's time.

> 
> In other words, please direct your criticisms to the use case itself
> and to legally and technically sound reasons why it should or should
> not be included in the charter as presently written.
> 

The charter requires a statement of purpose, scope
of work, list of deliverables, etc.  It does not require use cases.
 Typically, on TC's I've been involved with, use cases are produced
by the TC, for each deliverable, as a preliminary step in producing that
deliverable.  Typically I would expect the TC to send out the use
cases document for public review, to solicit wider feedback.  I would
not expect use cases to be part of the charter.

One cannot discuss the technical merits of use cases.
They are what they are -- a statement of one person's requirements. However,
when you propose a solution that handles these use cases, then we may have
technical substance which can be discussed.  

-Rob