[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 Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:29 AM, jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi, Jose, You raise issues worthy of answer and I compliment you on your discussion of them. However, I ask a question on how you would prefer that I answer. The problem I perceive is that your post spans the subject matter of three different proposals, each of which has at least one separate thread in the record of the meeting. I am wary of a discussion that is already akin to search for a needle in a haystack to find any connection between them. I do not single you out here; I have contributed to the mess myself. But if I respond to the entirety of your post here, then there is no obvious connection between the different threads. At the same time, I would prefer that we move toward an integration of our discussion of related proposals and avoid so much as we feasibly can further fragmentation of their discussion. Mailing lists were not designed for the kind of conversation we are having. Even a wiki would be better. I would suggest that we use one were it not for the fact that the list archives are the only officially designated record of this meeting. So I ask for your ideas on how we might begin consolidating the discussion of our related proposals. One thought is to begin a new thread with links in the first post to related threads in the email archives, then forward your post to that thread and use that thread for consolidating the discussion of our respective proposals insofar as they relate to one another. A post in each of the relevant threads linking to the email archive link for the consolidated discussion thread would then provide a handy cross referencing tool from any of the related threads. I am not wedded to that approach, but I do think we need to agree on how to deal with the fragmentation problem before I respond. (I will review the thread for your proposal and work on a response in the meantime.) I was not aware of your proposal. I will study it with interest and would like to respond to your post to this thread in an effort to find common ground that from my first reading of your post looks like we might fairly quickly find. I solicit your suggestion on how we might move toward rectification of our proposals without unnecessary fragmentation of the discussion. I also suggest that we focus on hammering out specific language for the charter in our areas of agreement, working toward a unified proposal we can both support. Without reviewing your specific proposal and reading only your post I respond to, my initial impression is that we share a common goal but disagree only as to specific steps in arriving at the goal. My experience in successful negotiations is that a focus on defining areas of agreement rather than focusing on areas of disagreement is the most productive path. If we agree on the destination, then it matters less which road we follow to reach it. Best regards, Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux) -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]