OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  ODF 1.2 review part staging

    Posted 10-01-2009 15:59
    On Monday's TC call I mentioned that I was focusing over the next couple 
    of weeks on JIRA defects related to ODF 1.2 Part I and III,   Obviously, 
    this would mean less emphasis on Part II (OpenFormula) in this time frame. 
     
    
    Let me explain the logic behind this.    Since we have 3 different parts 
    to ODF 1.2, we have two possible approaches to stages the work:
    
    A) Wait for all parts of ODF 1.2 to be ready for review and send them all 
    out for review at once.  This would mean that there would be no public 
    review for anything until everything was ready.  When we send a 
    specification out for public review, we are required to do it for a 
    minimum of 60 days, and during that time we are not permitted to change 
    it.  So this approach would mean that for 60 days the TC did nothing.  So 
    the net result is that those who participate in the review process, both 
    the public and SC34, would get hit by a big chunk of material to review at 
    once, then the TC would sit on its hands for 60 days, and then the TC 
    would get hit by a large number of review comments.  This does not appear 
    very efficient to me. The two resources (reviewers and editors) are 
    alternately at 0% and 100% utilization.
    
    Or
    
    B) Send the individual parts of ODF 1.2 out for public review when each 
    part is ready.  Since the parts vary in length and degree of maturity, I 
    think that they may be made available for public review in a staggered 
    fashion over the next few months.  Part III Packing is the closest to 
    being ready for public review, followed by Part I and then Part II.  As 
    one part is out for public review, the TC can finish the editing of the 
    parts that are not yet ready.  The net is that we're fully utilizing both 
    the capacity of those who participate in the public review, as well as the 
    TC's capacity to fix defects.  No one sits around waiting.
    
    Of course, some defects may cut across two or more of the three parts, so 
    I think that we want to have some substantial period at the end, where all 
    three parts are under simultaneous public review.   Remember, a 60-day 
    public review is the minimum required by OASIS.  We can have a longer 
    public review if the TC desires this.
    
    As for defect processing in JIRA, my recommendation would be to push 
    forward the "most mature" parts first, to get them ready for public 
    review.  So in my case, I have defects assigned to me in Parts I and II. 
    Since Part I is closer to being ready for public review, I'm going to work 
    on those now.  This doesn't mean that OpenFormula is less important.  This 
    is just a way to stage the parts to maximize the utilization of available 
    resources given the constraints of the review process.
    
    Please let me know if anyone has concerns with this.
    
    Regards,
    
    -Rob
    
    
    


  • 2.  RE: [office] ODF 1.2 review part staging

    Posted 10-01-2009 18:01
    I favor this approach.  
    
    I am ramping up my review of Part III along with Michael to see how close we
    can get to a CD and then work toward public review and maybe even committee
    spec.  I am sure that a CS will attract further comment while we are waiting
    for the broader concurrent review down the road, and that will be goodness
    too.
    
    
    
    


  • 3.  Re: [office] ODF 1.2 review part staging

    Posted 10-05-2009 10:37
    I also favor approach B)
    
    Best regards
    
    Michael
    
    
    
    Am 01.10.09 20:00, Dennis E. Hamilton schrieb:
    > I favor this approach.  
    > 
    > I am ramping up my review of Part III along with Michael to see how close we
    > can get to a CD and then work toward public review and maybe even committee
    > spec.  I am sure that a CS will attract further comment while we are waiting
    > for the broader concurrent review down the road, and that will be goodness
    > too.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >