Draft minutes of teleconference meeting on 2011-06-22 / Draft agenda for teleconference meeting on 2011-08-17

[Francis Cave]

I attach a revised draft of the minutes in which I have made the following
change to the second paragraph under item 6.1:

 

The sentence 

 

"Although no formal position was taken by the meeting, the balance of view
during the meeting seemed to be in favour of retaining  26300 to align with
ODF 1.1, which will remain a supported OASIS standard after ODF 1.2 has been
published, and creating a new numbered standard to align with ODF 1.2."

 

has been replaced by

 

"The matter was discussed only briefly and no formal position was taken by
the meeting."

 

Francis Cave

Convenor

 

 

 

 

From: sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of
Francis Cave
Sent: 07 July 2011 17:36
To: robert_weir at us.ibm.com
Cc: sc34wg6 at vse.cz
Subject: Re: Draft minutes of teleconference meeting on 2011-06-22 / Draft
agenda for teleconference meeting on 2011-08-17

 

Rob, Gerry

Sorry, I am obviously guilty of having over-interpreted (or should it be
over-interpolated?) the direction of the discussion. I'm happy to correct
the draft minutes as Rob has suggested.

Regards,

Francis Cave
Convenor



robert_weir at us.ibm.com wrote: 

sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz wrote on 07/06/2011 06:37:45 PM:
 
 
  

On Tuesday 05 Jul 2011 21:46:09 Francis Cave wrote:
    

I attach draft minutes of the teleconference meeting on 2011-06-22. 
      

Please
  

advise me of any errors.
      

Regarding Item 6.1:
 
"Although no formal position was taken by the meeting, the balance 
of view during the meeting seemed to be in favour of retaining 26300
to align with ODF 1.1, which will remain a supported OASIS standard 
after ODF 1.2 has been published, and creating a new numbered 
standard to align with ODF 1.2"
 
While I understand the reasoning behind the view that perhaps ODF 1.
2 should have a new numbered standard may I present a non-technical 
reason for suggestind that IS 26300 should be retained?
 
    

 
I'd also question whether that was the sense of the meeting.  My sense was 
it was quite undecided and even slightly tipped the other way.  But this 
is extremely hard to determine on a teleconference, absent a formal poll 
of attendees, so I'd be satisfied if the minutes merely stated that the 
topic was discussed but no formal position was taken. 
 
 
  

Suprisingly thought it may seem, it is not clear that 
administrations (more specifically UKG) would be able to get their 
heads around the new number. UKG struggles with standards generally.
 
I caution against anythin that could lead to the unintended 
consequence of (even) slower adoption of ODF.
 
This is not an unevidenced assertion. 
 
May I ask you to look at the following?
 
http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/content/view/156/89/
 
http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/content/view/141/89/
 
http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/content/view/149/89/
 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubadm/
writev/goodgovit/it63.htm
 
Thank you
 
Gerry Gavigan
 
_______________________________________________
sc34wg6 mailing list
sc34wg6 at vse.cz
http://mailman.vse.cz/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg6
    

 
_______________________________________________
sc34wg6 mailing list
sc34wg6 at vse.cz
http://mailman.vse.cz/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg6
 
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg6/attachments/20110708/56274ec4/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Minutes of WG 6 teleconference meeting 2011-06-22 rev.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 20781 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg6/attachments/20110708/56274ec4/attachment-0001.odt>