Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Draft Interoperability and Conformance TC formation proposal (0.2)

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/7/25  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> Shawn <sgrover@open2space.com> wrote on 07/25/2008 03:56:45 PM:
>
>
>> robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

>> And here you are advocating "demos".  There has been no discussion of
>> "demos" on this list that I recall, in a formal sense.  So, one would be
>
>> left to use the common meaning of a demo - a piece of software that
>> demonstrates a process.  I think that Dave's comment is more along the
>> lines of "where is that software demo coming from?", because you/we have
>
>> explicitly stated that the TC is not writing software.
>>
>> I can see ways in which your comments make sense here, but I don't want
>> to be assuming anything.  Can you elaborate some?
>>
>
> The phrase I used was "OASIS InterOp demos", not just "demos".  OASIS
> InterOp demos are something very specific and well documented at (of all
> places) the OASIS InterOp Demo policy page:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/who/interop_demo_policy.php

(InterOps) are public interoperability demonstrations that showcase
multi-vendor implementations of approved OASIS work.

How will 'showcasing' by vendors help the TC's objectives.



>> Other than those comments, I see your draft as being a typical
>> administrative document.  However, I find reading your draft difficult
>> (due to the more legalese type language) and was left with an unclear
>> view of what the TC was for, or how it would work.  Dave's draft may not
>> be in the format that OASIS would like to see, but as a developer, his
>> draft left me with a much clearer picture of the work to be done, and
>> how to get from point A to point B.  So, I know my opinion doesn't
>> matter any in the big picture, but if I had to choose between the two, I
>
>> would be voting for Dave's draft.
>>
>
> You cannot read the charter effectively absent a knowledge of how OASIS
> runs and the terminology OASIS uses for describing its own processes.  The
> confusion I've seen so far is from people trying to substitute their own
> meanings for things like "scope" or "InterOp demo" that are already
> defined by OASIS.  This will not work.  You cannot bring your own lexicon.
>  To expect otherwise is like thinking you can write or evaluate a new
> Constitutional Amendment without knowing what is already in the
> Constitution.


Rob. Stop treating this group like ignorant children needing to be told
off. You chose not to tell us of these esoteric items so
all we have to rely on is English as we know it and common sense.




> But I do appreciate the desire to have something "In plain English" to
> attract participation to the TC.  Once we have the TC formally proposed
> and OASIS has issued a Call for Participation, we can

No Rob. Once you have it agreed with your floury speech it is cast in stone.




-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk