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

Francis Cave francis at franciscave.com
Mon Apr 11 17:55:02 CEST 2011

Rob, thanks for your helpful remarks. You are quite right that a BRM is not strictly speaking a matter of concern for WG 6 - although I think I can be forgiven for mentioning it, as it is certainly a matter of interest to individual expert members of WG 6, who will undoubtedly have a significant role to play in formulating NB comments in a DIS ballot. WG 6 has no role in determining when or where the BRM takes place, but decisions about how we organise our meetings will undoubtedly be impacted by experts' travel plans for other meetings, one of which is likely to be a BRM.

Anyway, as I admitted at the outset of this particular thread, too much speculation is probably a waste of time, so I'm happy to close this topic.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg6-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf
> Of robert_weir at us.ibm.com
> Sent: 11 April 2011 16:52
> 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

More information about the sc34wg6 mailing list