[odf-discuss] Singapore ODF advocacy

[robert_weir at us.ibm.com]

Think of this as two steps:

Agree on the text of the document which shall be considered
Decide whether that text should be an International Standard

The purpose of the BRM is solely question #1 above, considering proposals 
to change the text of DIS 29500 to address NB comments from the Sept 2nd 
ballot.  Concerns that, by their very nature, cannot be addressed by 
changing the text of the standard would be considered out of order.  The 
process requires that the output of the BRM is a set of specific editing 
changes that the Project Editor can apply to DIS 29500.

Question #2 occurs after the BRM, in a 30 day period where NB's can change 
their vote from Sept 2nd. if they wish.  But just as the Sept 2nd. 
position could consider a wide range of issues, including IP, distaste for 
duplicative standards, etc., after the BRM NB's can change their position 
based on a wider range of concerns. 

So, don't let anyone tell you that you cannot vote No based on issues 
beyond the narrow textual debate of the BRM.

-Rob

___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir at us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/



"Russell Ossendryver" <worldlabel at gmail.com> 
Sent by: odf-discuss-bounces at opendocumentfellowship.com
11/28/2007 06:01 PM
Please respond to
ODF Discussion List <odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com>


To
"ODF Discussion List" <odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com>
cc

Subject
Re: [odf-discuss] Singapore ODF advocacy






>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


_______________________________________________
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/20071129/0ea96c98/attachment-0001.html