Re: [office] Conformance Clauses: Building consensus around ODF 1.2

[Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2009/2/23 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
<Michael.Brauer@sun.com>:
> Hi Doug,
>
> with some interest, I have read your blog regarding conformance clauses.
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/02/19/building-consensus-around-odf-1-2.aspx

Yes it was interesting Michael.


>
> So, first of all, then reading your blog, I got the impression that the
> current conformance clauses would contain only one level. You are
> probably aware of this, but I anyway would like to point out that the
> current proposal contains two levels. One allows the so called foreign
> elements, the other does not.

Which in and of itself is a little of a smokescreen, compared to
most specifications, which require conformance to the specification.
  How about a single statement,
"Conformance is defined as   	

Testing to determine whether an implemented system fulfills its
requirements against
all normative requirements of the standard.
"

The constraint being that 1.2 has normative requirements to replace 'statements'
as is  currently the case.


>
> You further state that the conformance "clause was inserted into a
> committee draft at the last minute". It was not. When
> uploading draft 8j on the 11th, Patrick clearly stated that the
> conformance clauses have been integrated.

I agree that for such a contention issue (see the email log)
it perhaps should have received an agenda item with intent to vote?



>
> Regarding reaching consensus: In order to reach consensus on the
> conformance clauses, it is essential to understand what the concerns of
> those are who disagree, and also to get proposals what needs to be
> changed in order to make the conformance clauses acceptable. I have
> asked several times for specific feedback to the individual clauses, but
> did not get much feedback. The feedback that I got has been to the
> best of my knowledge integrated into the proposal. In so far, it is not
> clear, at least to me, where your concerns are.

Perhaps you simply don't want to see the concerns Michael?




>
> I further have asked for feedback from those who did not agree to the
> committee draft last Monday in the TC call, but unfortunately did
> not get any feedback so far.

Please take this as negative feedback.


>
> You announced that you will explain your position in more detail, and
> I'm looking forward to read this on the TC's mailing list. I further
> would be glad to receive specific suggestions how the current conformance
> clauses have to be modified to get your acceptance. Knowing which specific
> modification you would like to see for the text of the conformance clauses
> would be very helpful and I think essential to figure out whether the TC can
> reach a consensus regarding the conformance clauses, or not.

I can only assume this negative feedback, as with all my others on
conformance, will be ignored.

I'll leave you on that thought.





-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk