[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Proposal: Align IS 26300 to ODF 1.1 instead of 1.0 maintenance
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. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]