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] My perspective. display perferct?

On Tuesday 1. July 2008 16:16:28 Dave Pawson wrote:
> 2008/7/1  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
> >> wrote: I think I'm doing a Rob Weir.
> >>
> >> Proposal for consensus: Please respond if you support it.
> >>
> >> "There will be no deliverable addressing the ideas of 'pixel perfect' as
> >> used on this list. "
> >>
> >> Please respond or you'll have one mans version of consensus.
> >>
> >> worksforme (ODF != PDF)
> >
> > I would not put a restriction in the charter against such a deliverable.
> >  But I'd agree that we have no basis for including in such a deliverable
> > at present.
> >
> > I think we will want the charter will be written broadly enough to cover
> > current and future versions of ODF.  We cannot know what features will be
> > in, say ODF 2.0.
> -10
> Absolutely disagree. If you want to scope the TC work for the next 123
> versions of ODF, then ..... get IBM to do it.
> That is not workable at all.

Hi Dave,

I'd like to point out that "-10" or other cries of disappointment tend to not 
have any other effect than to show you are dissatisfied.

They are especially confusing since you seem to have turned around 180⁰ from 
your arguments 2 days ago where you were violently stating you wanted pixel 
perfect in the spec...

The goal of this list is to reach a consensus which means that we agree on 
certain details.  If you object like this it means we can't get to reach 
consensus.  I can't read your mind and to ask us to change our minds takes at 
least the insights you have which we apparently don't have.
The best way to get consensus anyway is to reach out and tell us why you have 
a problem with it and convince us of why the suggestions you object to are 
In other words, make us understand your thoughts, please.

> The TC needs something tangible to work with.
> If future versions of ODF change then the TC will need re-chartering to
> cater for that.
> Otherwise they have an open ended ticket guaranteed  to fail.

Those are pretty strong words, and this goes against experiences of what I 
have seen in standard setting.
It actually is a good idea to not state explicitly what you will not cover at 
first inception anywhere, not just in a TC.  You won't see a lot of "We will 
not try to save the whale" charters. ;)

> No Rob.
> You've seen as big a consensus as we've had (Paul excepted).
> If you won't act on that then please say so

I'd like to avoid closing off any possibility of further discussion like this.
Thomas Zander

This is a digitally signed message part.

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