Statistics revised

[Francis Cave]

Alex, with friends like you, who needs enemies?... :o)

I love Murata-san's sense of humour, by the way:

> > A) Nobody cares
> > B) The standard is almost perfect.

Which of these applies to IS 26300? I'd say neither - and I'm not pointing
the finger of blame at anyone. We have a comparatively small number of
outstanding DRs, perhaps because there was no understood mechanism for DRs
to be processed until SC 34 and OASIS agreed principles and procedures for
maintenance of IS 26300. 

Faced with trying to translate IS 26300 into Japanese, Murata-san submitted
two batches of DRs some time ago. There was what some perceived as a long
delay in processing any DRs until the maintenance procedures were agreed,
during which time I would suggest that there was rather more acrimony over
the lack of progress than I have noticed being the case between WG 4 and
Ecma.

The first batch of Japanese DRS has now been resolved with the first set of
OASIS Errata for ODF 1.0 leading to the preparation of COR1 (we're awaiting
a final text from the Project Editor). The second batch is in the process of
being resolved by a second set of Errata for ODF 1.0 leading to the
preparation of COR2 (DCOR ballot expect to start later in the summer). COR2
should also resolve a small batch of DRs from the UK. 

I don't believe that, apart from those being resolved by COR2, there are any
outstanding DRs on IS 26300. But this can be explained by the fact that the
focus of WG 6 is now on preparing an AMD1 of IS 26300, which will align the
standard with ODF 1.1.

As a more general observation, I don't think that it is easy to compare the
maintenance of a standard as large and as complex as IS 29500 with
experience on other standards. One can and should compare progress on
processing DRs with the rules laid down in the Directives, and a failure to
respond to DRs in a timely fashion is always undesirable, regardless of the
complexity of the standard.

It is surely a truism of engineering - whether of software, standards or
anything else that is built to last - that you shouldn't build it (and
expect people to use it) if you cannot maintain it.

Francis Cave



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk]
> Sent: 23 June 2010 10:11
> To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given); e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: Statistics revised
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Of the SC 34 working groups, I suppose WG 6 would be most apt for
> comparison ...
> 
> - Alex.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> > Sent: 23 June 2010 01:33
> > To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> > Subject: Re: Statistics revised
> >
> > > Out of curiosity, how does this compare to other SC34 working
> groups?
> >
> > Other standards from SC34 do not have DR statistics.  Most standards
> receive
> > no DRs or very few.  I guess the reasons are:
> >
> > A) Nobody cares
> > B) The standard is almost perfect.
> >
> > In the case of 19757-2:2006, the reason is B.  I have not seen DRs
> for SDIF and
> > the reason is A.
> >
> > In our case, a lot of people still care and the standard is not
> perfect.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Makoto
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > ____________
> > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> > __________________________________________________________
> > ____________
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________