From frank@farance.com Mon May 14 10:42:31 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:41:08 -0400 From: Frank Farance Subject: RE: May 14th Meeting Notice and Agenda (and future meetings) In-reply-to: <019901c794c0$bfeefa10$3fccee30$@com> X-Sender: frankscan@127.0.0.1 To: Rex Jaeschke , "'Dave Welsh'" , patrick@durusau.net, "'Frank Farance'" , "'Jon Bosak'" , "'Price, Lynne'" , "'Doug Mahugh'" , "'Steve Carton'" , "'Jerry Smith'" , "'Norm Walsh'" , "'Richard Barber'" , "'Robert Weir'" , "'Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E'" , "'Tim Schoechle'" , "'Kevin Trainor'" X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 At 14:09 2007-05-12 -0400, Rex Jaeschke wrote: > > Dear V1 Members, > > Im writing the following in response to Patricks recent posting about the process to be used to deal with the OpenXML DIS 29500 Fast Track. Well be discussing this topic on next Mondays phone call. > > ... > As such, with respect to DIS 29500, I see the main task of V1 as reporting editorial and technical errors that impede or prohibit implementation of the specification. And since the submitter of such an error must explain the problem clearly enough for it to be addressed at any ballot resolution meeting, they are also in the best position to outline possible solutions. Indeed, I believe they have an obligation to do so lest the error be considered purely academic. Rex- Yes, I am in favor of recording the technical errors. Along these lines, I am primarily concerned with the completeness of the standard and the interpretation of the standard. For example, if one implements the standard according to the words of the standard, will that be enough to provide an interoperable implementation? Can the standard be interpreted consistently such that two implementers arrive at compatible implementations? > Ultimately, well have to submit any comments using the JTC 1-sanctioned comment form (see attached). As such, I believe that we should use that form throughout our entire issue-gathering process. Specifically, anyone who submits a comment (and, hopefully, a proposed resolution) does so using this form. Then issues get added to the master list (maintained by Patrick, perhaps?), which also uses that form. Patrick can assign each issue on the master list a sequential issue number. Periodically, hed circulate the current master issues list, so were all in sync. I believe Bugzilla is a better approach for all of us to contribute to. In SC32/WG2, we use Bugzilla to track defects and enhancements: http://issues.metadata-standards.org click on Search and look for open bugs (see bug #222 as an example). Whether or not Bugzilla is open to the public (read-only) or closes to V1 is an independent issue. After we're all done, we can extract the bug summary and insert it into the comment template. An important advantage to Bugzilla is that we WON'T get out of sync because we won't have out-of-sync copies of the comment template. In other words, using Bugzilla and then copying the comments to the JTC1 template allows us to get the best of both benefits. > Public Access to Committee Work > > Patrick asked, & whether we want to have a wiki for which there is read access by the general public but write access only by V1 members, for the discussion of issues? FYI, while a wiki might be useful, a wiki doesn't manage the work flow ... Bugzilla does this better. > An INCITS TCs primary obligation is to follow the wishes of its voting membership within the rules. Membership of a TC is open to anyone who can afford the fee and the time to participate, which allows any interested/affected party to participate. Thats the value-added proposition of being a member; you get to sit at the table! A TC has no obligation to the general public at large although one can construct rationale for keeping them informed. (The INCITS, JTC 1, and Ecma committees on which I have been participating do that via periodic news releases or summary documents on the public part of their websites. None of them makes documents on in-progress topics available outside the committee.) I recognize that V1 is the official venue for providing US comments, and that one must become a member of V1. However, we can have some connection with public commentary. We might allow the general public to become aware of comments, yet they wouldn't have a say in the comments. I believe it is important to have some connection with the public. Clearly, the public has enough interest in that they are submitting comments directly to ANSI. I'd rather that we become the primary forum for consolidation of comments. -FF ______________________________________________________________________ Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605 mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com Standards/Products/Services for Information/Communication Technologies