[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?

[Daniel]

marbux wrote:
> the Foundation-sponsored TC members are being given heave-ho,

I have to speak here. I am one of the Foundation-sponsored members in 
that sentence. This has nothing to do with the vote on the list 
implementation in ODF 1.2 and it is complete red herring to bring it up 
here. What happened was that the Foundation vastly exceeded the number 
of members that the OASIS rules say it should have. OASIS was gracious 
enough to discuss the issue for a year before actually applying their 
rules. As far as I can tell, the Foundation knew at the times that it 
gave out memberships that it was breaking OASIS rules, and with the 
exception of Marbux I don't think any of the Foundation-sponsored 
members were informed. I wasn't informed, and everyone I've heard from 
says they weren't informed (with the exception of Marbux).

I also feel I should say that OASIS has moved to offer free membership 
to the Foundation-sponsored members who contributed to ODF through their 
fee-waiver program. I was offered one such membership and I know of 
several others who got the same offer. All that I was asked whas a 
verbal commitment to participate actively (I haven't been active in 
months). With much sadness I declined the fee waiver because I feel that 
I have too many commitments and it would be dishonest of me to promise 
that I'll be active.

> 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.

Well, if you can't reach a concensus you have to have a vote. What else 
would you do? You can't keep up a discussion forever.

Daniel.