Ballot result: ISO/IEC 26300:2006/DCOR2

Keld Jørn Simonsen keld at
Fri Apr 29 19:23:49 CEST 2011

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:16:09AM -0400, robert_weir at wrote:
> Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld at> wrote on 04/29/2011 08:39:02 AM:
> > I hope we are not far from eachother. In the current case there should
> > not be any substantial differences. However, it might be enlightening to
> > share views on general cooperation between OASIS and WG6.
> > 
> Hi Keld,
> As you probably know, there are a range of ways in which PAS and Fast 
> Track submissions can be maintained. At one extreme, the submitter 
> controls maintenance and submits corrigenda and amendments directly to the 
> SC Secretariat for balloting, with no WG participation.  At the other 
> extreme the work is done entirely in a WG.  Either way is permissible, as 
> well as intermediate degrees.  Which method to use is proposed by the 
> submittor and approved by NBs when approving the DIS ballot. That is how 
> JTC1 works.   I don't think there is any one correct answer, since not 
> every standard, JTC1 SC and PAS submittor is the same.
> In the case of IS 26300, the maintenance agreement is detailed in a 
> Memorandum of Understanding between OASIS and JTC1.  Not between the ODF 
> TC and SC34, but between our parent committees.  This is not negotiable by 
> us in this WG.  You have a copy of these agreements in the SC34 repository 
> as N 1148 and 1149.

I do understand that there is a formal MOU between OASIS and ISO/IEC.
It is rather short tho, the meat of the text is about 2 pages.
Surely there is room for discussion of how to implement the agreements,
and evaluating the documents - and then propose changes if this is
deemed beneficial. That was what I meant with "share views on general
cooperation between OASIS and WG6" - how we actually work together.

> I recommend going back and reading the agreement between JTC1 and OASIS on 
> the maintenance of IS 26300:

and also

They are from Feb 2009, and they are not the final agreements.
I assume that the differences from the final agreements are minimal, if
any. Could the final versions be made available?

> In this maintenance regime, the OASIS ODF TC is given the responsibility 
> for coordinating maintenance.  Not SC34, not WG6, but the ODF TC.  The 
> agreement further called for NB experts to join the OASIS ODF TC in order 
> to provide NB input:

Yes I understand. However SC34 has a separate set of procedures for 26300, which is
also recognized in the MOU, including defect reports, corrigenda, amendmends,
and commitee drafts etc.

> "2) National Body input, including but not limited to the submission of 
> defects and amendments, can
> best be achieved by the participation of JTC 1 experts in the ODF TC of 
> OASIS. Supplying that
> participation is undertaken by SC 34 of JTC 1."
> This is aligned with the JTC1 Standing Rule on PAS, which states:
> "JTC 1 may negotiate with the submitter the option of maintenance handled 
> by the submitter as long as there is provision for participation of JTC 1 
> experts"
> In other words, cooperation between JTC1 and the PAS submittor is 
> facilitated by allowing for the participation of NB experts in the 
> submittor's maintenance committee. 
> OASIS has extended this invitation, and is willing to offer free OASIS 
> memberships for this purpose.  I have repeated the offer in liaison 
> reports at SC34 plenaries.  But sadly, since the approval of this MoU, 
> zero SC34 NB experts have joined the OASIS ODF TC.  I'll repeat the offer 
> here.  If anyone is interested in taking us up on the offer of membership 
> in the ODF TC, please send me an email.

I would very much like to take on this gratious offer, so please enroll
me as an OASIS member.

> I believe the ODF TC has been carrying out its responsibilities, as the 
> party responsible for coordinating the maintenance of IS 26300.  We've 
> seen 1 COR published and an additional DCOR and FPDAM submitted. 

Yes, I do think the ODF TC has been active.

Hovewer, I note that we have not in SC34 seen any drafts of ODF 1.2,
although it is approved in the OASIS TC, and it was even mentioned in the 
MOU more than 2 years ago. Could we have a copy of the approved ODF 1.2
as a SC34 document, as per N1149 item 3.c?

Who is actually the appointed TC liaison person from OASIS?

> If you feel we need a greater degree of cooperation, then perhaps SC34 
> should undertake steps to fulfill their commitment under the agreement, 
> i.e., have NB representatives join the ODF TC to provide NB input?

Well, the SC34 cannot command NBs, nor experts to participate - ISO/IEC
is a voluntary organization. But SC34 can of course recommend NBs to do
so. I have now taken action to do my part.

> In any case, I hope you can understand, that regardless of how some other 
> WG's might work, that it would not be possible for the ODF TC to 
> coordinate (which is our stated responsibility) the maintenance of IS 
> 26300 if comments are presented with zero notice at a WG6 meeting. 
> Absolutely impossible.  We don't need the full six weeks called for with 
> documents for SC meetings.  But we do need at least a week, preferably 
> two.  That allows us to consult with our membership, which includes most 
> of the implementors of ODF, and ideally would also include NB experts who 
> have joined the ODF TC per the MoU.  This also allows us to compare any 
> proposed changes with the published OASIS versions of these corrections 
> (our Approved Errata) to confirm that the proposals do not cause 
> divergence.  This is a principle that is also agreed to in the MoU.

Yes, I understand that, also as previously stated.

I think then, given that SC34 is obliged to process ballots within
JTC1, that in scheduling for this work (most likely carried out by WG6 or the
project editor) it would be nice to have OASIS TC officers involved,
so we can make a common plan.

> On the ODF TC we treat our maintenance responsibility seriously.  We have 
> a maintenance topic on every week's meeting agenda.  We keep a detailed 
> defect log.  We're working simultaneously on corrections to ODF 1.0 and 
> ODF 1.1, at the same time as we approve ODF 1.2 and start work on ODF 1.3. 
>  There is a lot going on with ODF, but only a small portion of it visible 
> in WG6.  That is why the fullest degree of cooperation will only come when 
> interested NB experts join the ODF TC.  We have a diverse technical 
> committee in OASIS.  That is where the action is.  If you participation is 
> limited to WG6 then your experience will be inferior, mainly dealing with 
> administrative minutia.  For the most part, WG6 is the nexus for an 
> informal NB expert review of the correction of typographical errors, where 
> the corrections originate in another committee (the ODF TC) and are 
> approved by yet another group (SC34 NBs).  There is not a lot that happens 
> in the middle.  The technical vitality, where the real work is occurring, 
> is with the OASIS ODF TC.  I hope you will consider joining us there.

I have considered it, and have decided to join OASIS as proposed by you.

However there are still issues with delays between the OASIS and the
ISO/IEC processes. You mentioned one in an earlier mail.
I also think the current ISO ODF 1.1 process is something we could
investigate how we could have made more speedy. Hopefully we can
learn from this and possibly use that knowledge to avoid unnessecary
delay for the adoption of ISO/IEC ODF 1.2. I think my participation,
or other WG6 expert participation does not do much to minimize such delays,
it is a matter of OASIS ODF TC and SC34/WG6 planning.

Best regards

More information about the sc34wg6 mailing list