WG4 Business Plan: Parts 1 and 4 Maintenance

[MURATA Makoto]

>
> Now Murata-san wrote that some important DRs have been open for more than 2
> years. As to whether or not they are “important” begs the question, “By
> whose measure are they considered to be important?” and this leads me back
> to marketplace relevance. I am not aware of any marketplace-relevant
> implementer, consumer, or national body having informed WG4 that without
> resolutions “real soon” that any commercial interests will be harmed.

Yesterday, the Japanese mirror of SC34 discussed about this issue.   WG2
members, Komachi-san and Suzuki-san, were present.  Japan believes
that the font-related DRs are highly important for Asian users of OOXML.
Since those who were involved in the design of fonts in MS Office either left
Microsoft or in a high-level position now, it is getting more and more
difficult
to address these DRs.  These DRs should be addressed as soon as possible.

Regards,
Makoto


>
> As to a DR being open for 2 years, I say, “So what?” Elapsed time alone is
> not a measure of whether something is important. A DR will only be closed
> when enough resources are applied to it, and resource priorities are often
> driven by  marketplace relevance.
>
> There is also the issue of where in an implementer’s cycle a COR or reprint
> is published. Specifically, it may take some years before a fix from a COR
> actually appears in an implementation. So while we might hurry to fix
> something, that does not guarantee such a fix will appear anytime soon.
>
> That said, suppose we find one or a few errors that we all agree need
> fixing. I’m not at all opposed to our publishing a COR containing just those
> few DR resolutions, and getting it out as soon as the ballot process allows.
> Then the bulk of the DRs that get resolved will follow later in a
> (presumably much larger) COR. In such a scenario, I would argue strongly
> against publishing a consolidated reprint until after the 2nd COR has been
> adopted. So, my recommendation can easily be adapted to allow one or more
> “emergency” CORs to be published sooner than the 2 years I proposed. But to
> work on such a priority project we’d have to define the criteria for an
> “emergency” situation. The time it’s been open is insufficient on its own.
>
> The reason for maintaining the current 2-year cycle is predictability. The
> outside world needs to know what our plans are and to be comfortable with
> our edition-generation pattern. In fact, so do we as active participants, so
> we can budget out time and expenses.
>
> Rex



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto