Doug, you are the one who raised in your note the question of Resolution
#3 and the TC's response to it. So far as I could determine, that was the
only portion of your note that was relevant to the TC's work. So I
responded to that. In any case, it was a good point to bring up, since
evidently there was some confusion on that point.
Regards,
-Rob
Doug Mahugh <> wrote on 12/15/2009 05:13:58 PM:
>
> Rob,
>
> You seem to be responding to a question I didn't ask, something
> along the lines of "what has the ODF TC done in response to
> Resolution #3?" I was more interested in knowing why you've written
> a blog post about something that didn't happen (Microsoft urging
> SC34 to withdraw ODF 1.0).
>
> Personally, I think that it reflects poorly on the ODF TC as a whole
> for one of our members to be actively promoting an apparently
> fictionalized version of a meeting where ODF maintenance issues were
> discussed, but I'll not press the matter any further.
>
> Regards,
> Doug
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:02 PM
> To:
> Subject: [office] Re: SC34 WG6 meeting
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
