RE: [xliff] RE: Reference Language <was: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals>

["Schnabel, Bryan S" <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com>]

Hi all,

This is a very good opportunity for us to exercise the policy we've agreed upon to guide us in situations where updates are requested for a feature that has been approved to move from section 2 to section 1. We said that once a feature lands in section 1, any proposed modifications to that feature, as a first step, must be judged by the feature owner to be minor or substantive. If the feature owner judges it to be minor he/she may just acknowledge this on list, and make the upate. If the owner judges it to be substantive, she/he must reach consensus from the TC. This can be done on the mailing list, or as an agenda item on a call.

During this cycle (XLIFF 2.0) we've had a far more robust/controversial/contentious (I mean to use these terms in a constructive way) set of proposals and circumstances. I cite this as being unusual for our normally low-key TC, but for other standards, it is not so unusual to have bruised knuckles and lively debates.

So as a TC we've gone through a period of learning and adjusting. As a part of finding our equilibrium, we veered a little far into the "let's bring every proposed modification to a ballot" approach. But the good news is we have a bunch of smart people on board, and we've evolved into a more rational process (the one I defined in the opening paragraph of this note).

So agree whole-heartedly with Helena that major/substantive proposals will likely risk not getting full attention from the TC this time of the year.

But in my view the calls on the list today for putting a few minor adjustments to bed do not fall into the category of substantive, and each have traveled the path they need to travel to be vetted, and to have cleared any objections (each has a nice virtual paper-trail on the list - and no objections).

However, Helena has proposed a freeze on seeking consensus until mid January 2013. If we have a second (either on list, or on the next call), we can conduct a ballot - whose results will be binding. Meanwhile, feature owners, please continue to use your best judgement.

Thanks,

Bryan
________________________________
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Helena S Chapman [hchapman@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:47 AM
To: Dr. David Filip
Cc: Ryan King; Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff] RE: Reference Language <was: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals>


I propose we do not attempt t seek consensus on any line items until mid Jan 2013. A lot of us are either gone at year end or have to fulfill our YE revenue commitment. Not a great time to have any serious discussion about key features.

It is a real business world for most of us especially at 4Q.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 16, 2012, at 8:56 AM, "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote:

> Ireland