Doug Mahugh <> wrote on 12/15/2009 01:34:49 PM:
>
> SC34 WG6 meeting
>
> I've read with some concern Rob's latest blog post, here: http://
> www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html. Although not
> an official ODF TC document, it comes from the co-chair of the TC
> and it's addressing a matter of ODF maintenance, so I expect that
> many people will see it as an authoritative source of information
> about recent developments in ODF maintenance.
>
Hi Doug,
The blog post deals with ODF maintenance discussions in SC34. It mentions
nothing about maintenance conversations within the OASIS ODF TC concerning
ODF 1.0 or ODF 1.1, and it does not concern ODF maintenance discussions or
actions in or of the ODF TC. I don't see how anyone could consider that
to be an authoritative ODF TC statement. But out of an abundance of
caution I will add a link to this list post to my blog post.
As for a TC response on "Resolution #3", we actually have sent a formal
response to SC34 on that, several weeks ago, saying we were considering
the question but had not yet reached consensus. In fact, the TC was
discussing this topic long before SC34 ever broached the topic, back as
long ago as March 2009. At that time the consensus was that we would wait
until the OASIS ODF 1.2 ballot was underway before working on any
amendment. But since then, OASIS has instituted additional requirements
for submission of OASIS standards to other organizations, which are
described here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php#submitwork
So we need to consider these requirements as well, including holding a
formal application to the OASIS President, a memorandum of understanding
with JTC1 and an "Interoperability Demo" with three independent
implementations participating, according to the Interop Demo policy:
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/interop_demo_policy.php
As mentioned before, we would also need to sync up ODF 1.1 with our
Approved Errata for ODF 1.0.
So this is not as simple as simply having a meeting vote and tossing ODF
1.1 over the wall to SC34. There is a substantial amount of work required
here. So far, neither your nor SC34's interest in this amendment has been
matched with an equal level of enthusiasm for volunteering to accomplish
these tasks. Until there is both consensus that we want an ODF 1.1
amendment and the above requirements have names assigned to them, I don't
see how this can advance.
In the end, we, as ODF TC members determine our own priorities, both with
our votes and how we deploy our finite resources. SC34 is one
stakeholder, among many, that I personally take heed of when gathering
requirements and determining my priorities. But SC34 is not in the
position to dictate requirements for me or the ODF TC. I assume it is the
same for you, Doug?
Regards,
-Rob
