Hi Dennis,
Rob was faster than me in replying, but I agree to all he says.
Regarding having a CD ballot and a PRD ballot contingent on the CD
ballot passing: Splitting the ballot would result in two different KAVI
ballots, which would be announced by two unrelated e-mails to TC
members. This adds some overhead to the balloting process.
Given that we are talking about a PRD ballot where the CD approval is a
prerequisite only, I'm in favor of having one combined ballot only. If a
TC member would have approved the draft as CD (but not as PRD), then she
or he may let the TC know that by adding a comment while casting the vote.
Best regards
MichaelOn 12/03/09 19:58, wrote:
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <> wrote on 12/03/2009
> 12:12:15 PM:
>
>> Some Parliamentary Matters:
>>
>> 1. I assume that the agreed motion is to be offered on the agenda of the
>> 2009-12-07 Coordination Call. Is that correct? Or are you proposing to
>> initiate an electronic ballot?
>>
>
> Michael made a motion on the list. I recommended a change and said I
> would support the motion as amended, and Michael agreed to the change. If
> the motion bears a resemblance to a motion made in a previous meeting,
> that is immaterial. A meeting motion would is approved or not in a
> meeting, and a motion made on the list is approved or not on the list. I
> don't think they necessarily carry over.
>
>> 2. Is this one motion or three, each contingent on the passage of the
>> preceding one(s)?
>>
>
> Michael made as single motion. So, as given it is all-or-nothing.
> However, it is valid to ask the motion to be divided into separate
> questions, and if there is consensus to do so that is what we would do.
> But I don't think you would want three separate questions, since the
> format and external stakeholders questions are required for the public
> review ballot and should not be split out. So at most you could have a CD
> ballot, and a PRD ballot contingent on the CD ballot passing.
>
>> Some Procedural Matters:
>>
>> 3. Surely there are more external stakeholders with regard to this
>> substantial specification.
>>
>
> Certainly. But we typically list out those groups with which we are in
> liaison with, or with whom we have contacts. Everyone else is lumped into
> the general public notification that OASIS will send out. Remember, this
> is a significant revision of a high profile standard. So the fact that we
> are finally going out to public review is not going to go unnoticed by any
> stakeholder.
>
>> 3.1 I would think that there are other industry groups that have an
>> interest in this specification, as well as civil administration and
>> governmental bodies that have asserted conditions on the use and
> adoption of
>> ODF in their affairs.
>>
>> 3.2 I also wonder about organizations, such as the IETF, the W3C, and
> the
>> Dublin Core Metadata Initiative on which their specifications are relied
>> upon heavily in various aspects of the normative provisions of the ODF
> 1.2
>> specification. (They might consider themselves stakeholders in the way
> that
>> the SVG group has an interest in ensuring that their specifications are
>> relied upon in suitable ways.)
>>
>
> For both of these, if you know someone's email address and are want us to
> send them a note when this goes out for public review, then we can add
> them. In particular, an email address of some member-only email list
> isn't going to help.
>
>> 4. Finally, I wonder if 60 days is sufficient, especially across a time
> span
>> where there is considerable holiday and year-end activity in many
> external
>> (and internal) stakeholder communities around the world.
>>
>
> Remember, we will be required to send it out for an additional 60 day
> review when we have all three parts ready. So 60+60 = 120 days combined.
> Plus we have another month of OASIS review during the ballot. So the
> total comes out to 5 months of review. I think that should be
> sufficient.
>
> -Rob
>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [mailto:]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 06:52
>> To:
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion
>>
>> On 12/03/09 15:32, wrote:
>>> For these external stakeholders:
>>>
>>> - International Digital Publishing Forum
>>> - W3C WebApp WG.
>>>
>>> I think only the Packaging part was really of interest to them. So
> I'd
>>> remove them from the list for Parts 1 and 2.
>> That's okay for me. Actually, I just took the list we had for part 3.
>>
>> Michael
>>> But with that change, if agreeable to you, I'd second the motion.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> <>
>>> To:
>>> OpenDocument Mailing List <>
>>> Date:
>>> 12/03/2009 02:58 AM
>>> Subject:
>>> [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion
>>> Sent by:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear TC members,
>>>
>>> in the TC call on Monday we discussed that the next ODF 1.2 part 1
> draft
>>> that gets available may be a candidate for a public review. I have
>>> uploaded that draft on Tuesday, and and now would like to make the
>>> following motion:
>>>
>>>
>>> Shall the OASIS ODF TC approve ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD03 Rev 07
>>>
>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00002.html
>>>
>>> and the corresponding schema files
>>>
>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200910/msg00455.html
>>>
>>> as a Committee Draft, and shall that Committee Draft be send out for a
>>> 60-day Public Review, with the external stakeholders listed below
> being
>>> notified?
>>>
>>> - OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC,
>>> - OASIS ODF Adoption TC,
>>> - JTC1/SC34,
>>> - International Digital Publishing Forum
>>> - W3C WebApp WG.
>>>
>>> Shall further from the three versions of the specification document
>>> (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
>>> draft the ODF version be the authoritative one?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
>> StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
>> Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
>> D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
>> http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
>> http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
>>
>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
>> D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
>> Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
>> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>
--
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
