[odf-discuss] Singapore ODF advocacy

[Russell Ossendryver]

>What is the topic being debated currently?  The ballot on OOXML ended on
Sept 2nd.    You won't >have the final revised text of OOXML until after the
BRM in February.  So what does "winning" look like >at this stage in the
game?

Waiting to get a reply and will forward.

I have a question:  One thing the BRM meetings wont discuss from these
comments/resolutions is the ones related to ISO policies, and goals like the
Belguim comment: http://www.dis29500.org/category/countries/belgium/ which
in this case has classified as "Fluff". Please correct me if I am wrong
about that?

It seems to be only about the technical aspects. Do these  comments on ISO
policies/goals, patents, duplicate fields also get resolved and when?

On Nov 28, 2007 10:14 AM, <robert_weir at us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> What is the topic being debated currently?  The ballot on OOXML ended on
> Sept 2nd.    You won't have the final revised text of OOXML until after the
> BRM in February.  So what does "winning" look like at this stage in the
> game?
>
>
> What I know some NB's are doing right now, include activities such as:
>
>    1. Prioritizing their own comments from Sept 2nd.  Which ones are
>    "must fix items" versus which ones are "would be nice to have".  The idea is
>    to develop in advance a position for the BRM, so a "No" vote would be
>    maintained unless all of the "must fix" items are satisfactorily addressed.
>    2. Reading through the comments of other NB's from Sept 2nd., to see
>    if any of them are also "must fix" items.  An defect can certainly be
>    critical to a NB even if that NB did not originate the comment.
>    3. Deciding whether to attend the BRM and February and proposing a
>    delegation to send.  Preliminary delegation lists are due to SC34
>    Secretariat by December 11th or an NB risks not being able to attend the
>    BRM.
>    4. Reading through Ecma's proposed resolutions to comments and
>    deciding if these were addressed adequately.  Ecma has responded to 662
>    comments so far, around 20% of the overall count.  Your NB commitee should
>    have made these 662 Ecma proposals available to you.  If not, you should ask
>    about it.  If you experience any stonewalling, let me know and I may be able
>    to help.
>
>
> I've been reading through the 662 responses, and there isn't much here.
>  It looks like they went after the typographical errors in this batch.  So
> nothing controversial.  The major issues remain.
>
> The formula issues are discussed in my blog entry:
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/formula-for-failure.html
>
> The US submitted those, and a few other formula related comments as part
> of its Sept 2nd. contribution.
>
> -Rob
>
> odf-discuss-bounces at opendocumentfellowship.com wrote on 11/28/2007
> 01:12:16 AM:
>
>
> > Russell Ossendryver wrote:
> > > He has requested: would appreciate any more info or interesting fact
> > > that I  have missed out (eg: I just noticed that OOXML has problems
> > > with formulae) or notes that  provides us stronger ammo to defeat the
> > > MS team
> >
> > I'm going to my nations advisory group (tech advisory on the vote), so
> > I'll second the request for any new information, particularly any
> > information about ECMAs proposed dispositions.
> >
> > What are these formulae problems?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > .Matthew Cruickshank
> >
> http://holloway.co.nz/
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > odf-discuss mailing list
> > odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com
> > http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20071128/f59fd207/attachment-0001.html