RE: [office] Proposal: Align IS 26300 to ODF 1.1 instead of 1.0 maintenance

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Thanks,

This is very helpful.  I need to digest it further and see how to
calendarize the various cases.

Meanwhile, a clarification.  I wasn't thinking of the three
statements-of-use condition for becoming an OASIS Standard but the stronger
requirement which apparently applies before JTC1 submission of either a
1.1-amendment or an ODF 1.2 OASIS Standard.  

In the document you linked to in your first reply, 

<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/liaison_policy.php#submitwork>, 

The requirement before submission to another standards organization is quite
clear:

"1. Submission requirements.

    "Submissions of OASIS Standards to other standards 
    organizations may be made if all of the following 
    requirements are satisfied. The OASIS Board of 
    Directors must approve any deviations from these 
    requirements. 

    ...

    "c. The successful completion of an OASIS-organized 
        public interoperability demonstration between at 
        least three independent implementations conducted
        in accordance with the OASIS InterOp Demonstration
        Guidelines."

seems quite imposing, especially for submission of a 1.1 as an amendment to
IS 26300.  I have no idea what the prospects for an approved deviation might
be.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 

Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 15:49
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] Proposal: Align IS 26300 to ODF 1.1 instead of 1.0
maintenance

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/04/2010 
04:22:28 PM:
[ ... ]
>   1.3 With regard to the OASIS policies and procedures for submissions 
to
> another standards body, the question seems to be whether submission of 
an
> amendment for 1.1 alignment triggers that process, especially provision 
1c
> on conduct of an OASIS Interop Demonstration.  I agree this might be a
> show-stopper.
> 

My understanding is that requirement is triggered.  We obviously need to 
consider this for ODF 1.2, in approximately the same time frame.  So we 
need to solve this one way or another.  Maybe we can have a single Interop 
Demo to satisfy the requirements for both ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2?

[ ... ]

> 3. WITH REGARD TO ODF 1.2 AT JTC1
> 
>   3.1 My wildly-optimistic trial calendar for approval of ODF 1.2 
suggests
> that we couldn't be making a PAS submission of an ODF 1.2 OASIS standard 
to
> JTC1 before October, 2010, and I didn't even consider the
> three-independent-implementations requirement. 


[ ... ]

The requirement is for three "Statement of Use" by OASIS member 
organizations.  This does not necessarily require that there be three 
implementations, nor that they are independent.

[ ... ]