Hi Robin,
Nothing is really adopted in any formal
sense until it is written up and included in the specification, and even
then it requires a series of votes to advance it from a Committee Draft
to a Committee Specification to an OASIS Standard. On the middle
vote the specification will require 2/3 approval of TC members. That
ultimately is what ensures that our published work has a high degree of
consensus.
What the present vote accomplishes is
to focus our efforts toward removing the imperfections from a single approach
rather than trying to simultaneously remove the imperfections from three
different approaches. But until we have an actual specification to
vote on, this is a preliminary step, but not the formal adoption of any
specification material.
Regards,
-Rob
Robin LaFontaine <>
wrote on 07/25/2012 04:46:34 AM:
> From: Robin LaFontaine <>
> To: ,
> Cc:
> Date: 07/25/2012 04:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [office] Preparing ballot text --
I need your CT links
>
> Rob,
>
> I am clear about the choices but not so clear about the wording of
> the proposal. As Chair of the ADC Subcommittee, I need to point out
> to the TC that at this stage ECT and GCT have had significant peer
> review but MCT has not yet had this review.
>
> Therefore I would strongly advise the TC not to adopt MCT without
> the proviso that it proves that it can work as a solution.
>
> To adopt a proposal with no specification (other than a
> presentation) for a major area of ODF seems to be taking an
> unjustifiable risk with a major standard.
>
> MCT appeared on the scene with one proponent, and as such it was
> difficult to justify further delay and SC work to include it in the
> SC report. MCT now has a significant following, though it is still
> not yet technically proven.
>
> Perhaps a motion that would get wider consensus would be along these
lines:
>
> "The TC instructs the ADC SC to investigate fully the MCT proposal
> over a period of at least six months but no more than nine months
> and if at the end of that evaluation period the major technical
> risks have been removed and prototypes demonstrate that it will
> provide a better solution than the other proposals, the TC will
> adopt it for inclusion in the next version of ODF. The TC does this
> on the understanding that the MCT proponents will provide a
> specification and support for this work."
>
> That would I think be both more prudent and achieve more consensus.
> I would of course step down as ADC SC chair so an independent chair
> can be appointed.
>
> Robin
>
> On 23/07/2012 19:07, wrote:
> As discussed in today's TC call I plan on starting
a 7-day
> electronic ballot on the change tracking proposals. I'd like
to
> start the ballot on Wednesday morning at the latest.
>
> The choices in the ballot will be (in alphabetical order)
>
> 1) ECT
> 2) GCT
> 3) MCT
> 4) None of the above
> 5) Abstain
>
> Proponents of the proposals are invited to send me links that
> further describe their proposal (list message, wiki, document,
> whatever). I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, so I'll
> only add links if they are provided.
>
> Please send along the links before end of day Tuesday.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> -- -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd "Experts in information
change"
> T: +44 1684 592 144 E:
> http://www.deltaxml.com
> Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN,
UK
