Rob,
I don't think anything in my suggestion is inconsistent with having an
early discussion of concerns or objections.
I do think we may have a different understanding of the CSD stages.
When you say:
> We probably want to set deadlines for each of these actions to be
> completed by. Maybe the goal is for CSD02 to be feature complete, and
> go
> out for public review, and CSD 04 is only corrective?
Whether intended or not, I hear CSD02 as being the limiting factor on
CSD04.
Yes?
>From my perspective, the following would be permissible (although not
required):
CSD01 - Proposal for integrated styles accepted and integrated
CSD02 - Proposal for Japanese table model accepted and integrated
CSD03 - Proposal for change tracking accepted and integrated
CSD04 - Corrections/changes to proposals from CSD01-03 plus whatever new
features are accepted and incorporated in CSD04, which then proceeds to
become an OASIS standard.
Such that any feature, assuming it was accepted and then
specified/accepted, would never be more than 6 months away from
incorporation into an ODF CSD.
Is that your understanding?
Hope you are at the start of a great weekend!
Patrick
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 12:03 -0500, wrote:
> Patrick Durusau <> wrote on 01/13/2011 07:43:30 PM:
> >
> > Greetings!
> >
> > I took a few minutes today to scroll down the list of ODF-Next issues
> > and must say it is an impressive list!
> >
> > Given the train schedule that seems to be under popular discussion -
> > approx. 6 months, let me suggest a means of making a cut at the issues
> > that will be resolved for the next version of ODF:
> >
>
> I'd start with one additional suggestion. If a member has something that
> they want to see in ODF-Next that is not already in JIRA, then please go
> ahead and enter it now. No need for a complete technical proposal at this
> point, but write up enough so that other TC members know what you are
> talking about.
>
> I'd also recommend that members who have an interest in a particular
> issue, to declare that now by assigning the issue to themselves.
>
> > At the start of each month, generate a list of issues that have
> > completed proposals for incorporation.
> >
>
> Developing a "complete proposal", ready for integration into the draft,
> for a substantial feature, can be a large investment of time. I would not
> want to do all that work and then have a TC member object to the feature
> overall, not just the details. So I think we need some way for a member
> to give a brief outline of a proposal, and get a sense of whether further
> efforts in this area will be well received or not.
>
> Note specifically that I am concerned with any approach where we all, in
> an uncoordinated way, simply add features of interest to our
> implementations, without regard for interoperability, redundancy, easy of
> implementation, wider applicability, backwards compatibility, etc. Since
> I would likely oppose feature proposals that had liabilities like these, I
> think it behooves us to have some way to understand these types of
> objections early, before members have invested a lot of time in a
> proposal. In many cases, discussing these concerns early can lead to a
> better solution overall, with less effort.
>
>
> > Some of those, after the first month, will have been incorporated in the
> > next draft so that will be a measure of our progress.
> >
> > The issues that have not been incorporated, due to lack of agreement on
> > the proposals or other changes needed in the proposals, become the first
> > priority for the TC in the following month.
> >
> > Issues that don't have proposals are just that, issues that don't have
> > proposals.
> >
> > Nothing prevents any TC member or even a member of the public from
> > contributing a proposal but the existence of a proposal should be the
> > starting point for further TC action.
> >
>
> I generally like the idea, but I think we may need a two-stage approval
> process: 1) agreeing that we want to address a particular functional
> area, and 2) agreeing to a specific specification proposal that addresses
> that functional area.
>
>
> > I think such a process would keep us focused on issues that have a
> > substantial likelihood of appearing in the next version and make it
> > clear to anyone who cares about an issue, that caring isn't enough. A
> > "fully formulated proposal" is required for the issue to progress.
> >
> > BTW, "fully formulated proposal" means all the required text/edits have
> > been specified along, optionally, whatever arguments you wish to make.
> > (It helps if you specify needed formatting.)
> >
> > In other words, saying: "you need a better table model," as a proposal
> > gets a shrug and we move onto the next issue. I happen to think that is
> > true but such a "proposal" could not be usefully evaluated by the TC.
> >
>
> In my model, I'd give the example as:
>
> 1) I propose, "we need a better table model, specifically Japanese 'kite'
> diagonally split table headers, similar to that described in the W3C
> Note....
>
> That proposal then gets discussed and aa vote up or down.
>
> 2) If the feature proposal is approved, then a member needs to develop the
> "full formulated proposal", with all the edit changes, etc. That then
> gets voted up or down.
>
> We probably want to set deadlines for each of these actions to be
> completed by. Maybe the goal is for CSD02 to be feature complete, and go
> out for public review, and CSD 04 is only corrective?
>
> -Rob
>
> > Hope everyone is having a great day!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > PS: Don't forget to vote on CD07!
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Durusau
> >
> > Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> > Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> > Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> > Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
> >
> > Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
> > Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
> > Twitter: patrickDurusau
> > Newcomb Number: 1
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
