Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Draft Interoperability and ConformanceTC formation proposal (0.2)

[Shawn <sgrover@open2space.com>]

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>> To coordinate, in conjunction with the ODF Adoption TC, Interop 
> Workshops
>>> and OASIS InterOp demos related to ODF;
>> This from the man who said we shouldn't be writing software. U turn Rob.
>>
> 
> What does this have to do with software?  You've lost me there, Dave.

I see room for confusion in this statement Rob.  In your Draft, you have 
the phrase

"The following activities are explicitly not within the Scope of the OIC TC:

    1. Acting as a rating or certifying authority or agency for 
conformance of ODF implementations;
    2. Authoring or distributing software that tests the conformance or 
interoperability of ODF implementations;"

And here you are advocating "demos".  There has been no discussion of 
"demos" on this list that I recall, in a formal sense.  So, one would be 
left to use the common meaning of a demo - a piece of software that 
demonstrates a process.  I think that Dave's comment is more along the 
lines of "where is that software demo coming from?", because you/we have 
explicitly stated that the TC is not writing software.

I can see ways in which your comments make sense here, but I don't want 
to be assuming anything.  Can you elaborate some?

> I'm not sure of the objection here.  Do you a reason why not distributing 
> software would be incompatible with giving a demo?  Remember, the Charter 
> restricts what the TC does as a TC.  It does not restrict what TC members 
> do as individuals outside of the TC. 

See above.

> Dave, you are always free to make a specific suggestion, including any 
> replacement text.  That would save time and  avoid the necessity of 
> reading your mind.

 From my view, it would look like Dave's draft, and your draft are very 
different.  Dave has supplied some text for consideration.  Your draft 
appears to reject that text.


>>> Interoperability test corpus documents,  released in batches, 
> according to
>>> functional area (several incremental deliverables, Q4 2008 through 
> 2009)
>> No definition of " Interoperability test corpus documents,"? Who'se 
> supposed
>> to translate this?
>>
> 
> If more definition is required, it should go in the Scope of Work section 
> with this term is first used.  Any specific suggestions?

Scope of work is supposed to define what is and is not under 
consideration.  The scope should not indicate HOW that consideration 
(aka work in this case) should take place.  Nor should the scope be 
cluttered with definition of terms.  If terms need to be defined, then a 
separate "Definitions" section should be used.  (NOTE: this from my 
common knowledge - not from any detailed know how regarding OASIS 
documents).


Other than those comments, I see your draft as being a typical 
administrative document.  However, I find reading your draft difficult 
(due to the more legalese type language) and was left with an unclear 
view of what the TC was for, or how it would work.  Dave's draft may not 
be in the format that OASIS would like to see, but as a developer, his 
draft left me with a much clearer picture of the work to be done, and 
how to get from point A to point B.  So, I know my opinion doesn't 
matter any in the big picture, but if I had to choose between the two, I 
would be voting for Dave's draft.

With regards to the first meeting - Rob, your draft says IBM will host 
that.  I know we need to get something down on paper so that discussion 
can move forward, but IBM is one of the vendors with a vested interest 
in ODF.  So is Sun.  Would it not be desirable to have at least the 
first meeting on neutral grounds hosted by a neutral party?  Or at least 
a party without as much vested interest.   This sort of thing can become 
fodder for the conspiracy theorists out there.  But I also realize that 
there will be no pleasing those sorts anyways.  I do thank you and IBM 
for stepping up though, and hope that continues.

My thoughts.

Shawn