Shawn <> wrote on 07/25/2008 03:56:45 PM:
> 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?
>
The phrase I used was "OASIS InterOp demos", not just "demos". OASIS
InterOp demos are something very specific and well documented at (of all
places) the OASIS InterOp Demo policy page:
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/interop_demo_policy.php
.
.
.
>
> 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.
>
You cannot read the charter effectively absent a knowledge of how OASIS
runs and the terminology OASIS uses for describing its own processes. The
confusion I've seen so far is from people trying to substitute their own
meanings for things like "scope" or "InterOp demo" that are already
defined by OASIS. This will not work. You cannot bring your own lexicon.
To expect otherwise is like thinking you can write or evaluate a new
Constitutional Amendment without knowing what is already in the
Constitution.
If you are looking for how a TC works, you will not find it in the
charter. That is in the OASIS TC Process definition here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php
But I do appreciate the desire to have something "In plain English" to
attract participation to the TC. Once we have the TC formally proposed
and OASIS has issued a Call for Participation, we can get attention drawn
to it in several ways. OASIS is good at helping promote new TC's. They
know what to do.
> 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.
>
The first meeting would be a teleconference. So we're really talking
about who pays for the toll-free phone lines for that first call. If
anyone wants to make a conspiracy theory about that, then it is a slow day
for conspiracy nuts.
Regards,
-Rob
