[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?

[marbux]

On 6/1/07, Alex Hudson <alex at stratagia.co.uk> wrote:
>
> marbux wrote:
> > On 6/1/07, *Alex Hudson* <alex at stratagia.co.uk
> > <mailto:alex at stratagia.co.uk>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200705/msg00027.html
> >
> >     That was the only mail on the TC I could find which discussed the
> >     result
> >     of the ballot which wasn't from you.
> >
> >
> >
> > There were lots that weren't from me. Try the "List Proposal Vote
> > Deadline on Wednesday" thread, which continued well after the balloting.
>
> The only discussion of the result of the ballot is you putting pressure
> on the TC to change their mind. Nobody else indicates, in that thread or
> others, that they are unhappy with the result in any way. Now that
> thread has ended, the TC is back to business as usual.
>
> To characterise it as "meltdown" seems pretty obviously inaccurate from
> where I am. There was division, it was debated, and the proposal from
> the Sun/KDE people got the most votes. That's how the TC works.
>

Read Patrick Durusau's post in that thread. He pretty clearly stated his
belief that the incompatibility with ODF 1.0 has to be removed. And the TC
is most decidedly not back to business as usual. Novell is no longer
participating, the Foundation-sponsored TC members are being given heave-ho,
the Foundation itself is moving on, and the TC has done next to no work on
the spec since the ballot. I wouldn't call that business as usual.

And it is inaccurate to say "that's how the TC works." This is the first
time in the TC's history when the consensus process was abandoned. The fact
that the OASIS rules allows it does not alter how the TC worked in the past.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070601/b3a9f4b1/attachment-0001.html