Ballot result: ISO/IEC 26300:2006/DCOR2
robert_weir at us.ibm.com
robert_weir at us.ibm.com
Fri Apr 29 21:37:18 CEST 2011
Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld at rap.no> wrote on 04/29/2011 01:23:49 PM:
> 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
> > the maintenance of IS 26300:
> > http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1148.pdf
> 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?
The final agreement between OASIS and JTC1 did not differ from that draft,
to my recollection. You would need to check with your NB to retrieve the
final text if you do not have direct access to the JTC1 document
repository. It would be good if the SC34 Secretariat posted this as well.
> > In this maintenance regime, the OASIS ODF TC is given the
> > 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
> > 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,
> and commitee drafts etc.
Yes. JTC1/SC procedures must be followed as well. We need to follow OASIS
procedures, JTC1 procedures as well as the MoU. It does constrain SC34
differently than would be the case for a standard that SC34 developed
organically. It also constrains OASIS differently than standards that we
do not submit to JTC1 under the PAS process. Both sides have agreed to
make mutual accommodations to make this work. But I don't see this as a
problem. Friction occurs when NB experts try to treat IS 26300 as if it
were a native ISO/IEC work product, or when OASIS TC members treat IS
26300 as if it was a standard that they had not submitted for PAS
transposition. We need to avoid both errors.
> > 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
> > here. If anyone is interested in taking us up on the offer of
> > 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.
Wonderful. If you can contact me off-line with your preferred email
address (you've used three different ones in this thread already), I can
get you started with the membership application.
Is there anyone else who wants to join? Please let me know. It is easier
if I do this all at once.
> 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
> 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?
In fact we do send a liaison message to SC34 to notify you of new CD's and
public reviews for ODF 1.2. See for example, N 1553, N 1460, N 1363 and N
1155. When I send notification to the SC34 Secretariat I typically also
copy the WG6 Convenor. I know that some NB experts have received these
notifications, since we have received NB expert comments during these
public reviews, for which we are appreciative. We've also received review
comments directly from one NB (Denmark).
When ODF 1.2 is approved an OASIS Standard, the plan is to submit it as a
PAS submission, to JTC1. But we are not quite there yet. As you know,
the PAS process does not formally involve JTC1 SC's in the ballot process,
but only as eligible BRM participants.
> Who is actually the appointed TC liaison person from OASIS?
I am the head of delegation for the liaison from the OASIS ODF TC to WG6.
> > If you feel we need a greater degree of cooperation, then perhaps SC34
> > should undertake steps to fulfill their commitment under the
> > 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.
I understand. On the OASIS side all we can do is make the opportunity
available, which we have done.
> 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
> project editor) it would be nice to have OASIS TC officers involved,
> so we can make a common plan.
I think we've done this. I asked for time for the ODF TC to review the
comments. The WG Convenor agreed. I added this topic to the ODF TC
agenda for Monday. Do we need more of a plan than this? If we were doing
corrigenda every month, and they were extremely time critical, then it
might be worth writing a detailed procedure document for this. But we're
not really in that situation.
But if there were consensus in SC34 that a more detailed written procedure
is needed, then I would ask the ODF TC, as the JTC1-designated party
responsible for coordinating the maintenance of ODF, to write up more
In the end. my priorities are:
1) Ensure that the ODF TC is getting NB expert feedback on our drafts.
This can be done by feedback to our comment list, or preferably by NB
experts joining the ODF TC. This is working well today.
2) Ensure that the ODF TC is coordinating a formal responses to NB
comments where formal comments are received. We're also executing on this
today. For example, with the DCOR2 comments, the ODF TC is reviewing them
3) Ensure that the OASIS and ISO/IEC versions of ODF do not diverge. This
is an explicit goal of the MoU, is explicitly a goal according to JTC1
Standing Rule on PAS, and is something that I've personally heard as a
priority from several NBs. This is an ongoing task. The OASIS submission
of the ODF 1.1 amendment is a key part of this.
4) Ensure that the above is done without unnecessary delay, while also
appreciating that rushing is not good for quality. I rather lose a week
than lose a clause.
I remind you that this all started with my very simple and very reasonable
request, that the ODF TC should be given more than zero notice to review
the ballot comments on DCOR2. IMHO, we shouldn't make this more
complicated than necessary. At this pace the ODF TC will have reviewed
and responded to the DCOR2 comments before you and I are done with this
More information about the sc34wg6