Michael Brauer <> wrote on 03/03/2011 04:29:31
AM:
>
> So, since the CSD07/CSPRD03 public review was a follow-up public
> review, it was limited in scope to the changes we made since the
> last public review. It is also limited in time to the start and the
> end of the public review.
>
> After having a closer look at the above issues, none seems to be in
> the submitted during the public review, and is within its scope.
> This shall not mean that we should not reolve them, but only that we
> are not bound to the 7-day waiting period before we can request
> the CS ballot, and that we do not need a disposition report for PRD03.
>
The rules are not very clear in this.
Section 3.2 says:
"The initial public review of a public review draft must take place for a
minimum of 30 days, and any subsequent reviews must be held for a minimum
of 15 days. Changes made to a committee draft after a review must be
clearly identified in any subsequent review, and the subsequent review
shall be limited in scope to changes made in the previous review."
The odd part of that is the phrase "shall be limited in scope...". Who is
that a requirement on? The public? Or us?
And section 3.3 says:
"After the public review, the TC may approve the Committee Specification
Draft as a Committee Specification or the Committee Note Draft as a
Committee Note. If any comments have been received during the most recent
Public Review period, that vote may not commence any earlier than 7 days
after the last day of that Public Review."
So it says "if any comments have been received during the most recent
Public Review..." not "if any comments in scope have been received..."
I think we generally receive comments, and some are in scope, and some are
not. But whether any comment triggers the 7-day delay, or whether only
"in scope" comments trigger that, is not clear to me. I think "any" could
refer to "in scope" and "out of scope" comments. But I could be wrong...
In any case, who decides whether a comment is in scope or note? I think
that determination is best made by the consensus of the TC where possible,
or a vote if necessary. So I'd still recommend that discuss this on
Monday and record our decision in the minutes as a "disposition of
comments report", even if we simply list the comments received and say for
each one, "Not in scope of public review" or "Deferred to ODF 1.2 Errata
01" or "TC member proposal for ODF 1.3" or similar.
We could also seek clarification from OASIS on this, but my guess is that
would take more than 7 days.
-Rob
