Draft minutes of meeting in Prague, 2011-03-31

[Paul Cotton]

>  So I can't see an occasion where it would be desired to have a WG meeting coincident with a BRM.

I think it might would sense to have a BRM coincident with an SC34 meeting and possibly a WG6 meeting.  If Canada were to have technical comments on ODF 1.2 then we would appreciate any F2F BRM being scheduled so that we could attend both such a BRM and other SC34 meetings.  It is a simply a resourcing and travel cost factor.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of robert_weir at us.ibm.com
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:52 AM
To: SC 34/WG 6 mailing list
Subject: Re: Draft minutes of meeting in Prague, 2011-03-31

sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz wrote on 04/10/2011 07:14:36 PM:
> 
> It may seem premature to be thinking about a face-to-face meeting in 
> 2012, given that we do not yet know exactly when ODF v1.2 will be 
> submitted for PAS transposition. However, WG 6 experts should bear in 
> mind the distinct possibility that a DIS ballot on the PAS submission 
> of ODF v1.2 would result in the need for a Ballot Resolution Meeting 
> (BRM), probably no earlier than February 2012 but most likely in the 
> first half of the year. Depending upon the timing and location of a 
> BRM, we may have to consider arranging two face- to-face meetings in 
> fairly quick succession.
> 
> This is probably as much speculation as is needed for now, but I’m 
> happy to receive your views, if any.
> 

The BRM is not a WG function, so I don't think we need to concern ourselves with it here. 

Also, we shouldn't be discussing ODF 1.2 while under ballot.  So I can't see an occasion where it would be desired to have a WG meeting coincident with a BRM.

So I think that suggests that we adopt a WG meeting schedule based on the needs of ISO/IEC 26300 maintenance, which is the ambit of this WG.  The thoughts of other SC34 participants on what an ideal meeting schedule should be, whether 4x a year or 3x, is certainly interesting, but not binding on us.

I'll also observe that past face-to-face WG meetings have been sparsely represented physically by active participants of this WG.  Many of us participate only via telephone.  However, the practical benefit of F2F meetings has been not for us to progress the work of the WG, but to socialize the work of the WG to other SC34 participants who drop in at their convenience.  So I think it is valuable for us to continue scheduling F2F meetings opportunistically for that purpose, at the convenience of the Convenor. We could, as a WG, present an informative report for that purpose at almost any time.

-Rob
_______________________________________________
sc34wg6 mailing list
sc34wg6 at vse.cz
http://mailman.vse.cz/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg6