OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  Re: [office] regrets

    Posted 07-24-2008 07:38 
    Hi,

ups --- mixed it up. I thought Rob was talkting about the vertl-rels...

Rob/Oliver: Please kindly also defere the vote on the vert-rels until I had a chance to address the questions in the TC.

Thanks,

~Florian


>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems


  • 2.  Re: [office] regrets

    Posted 07-24-2008 08:53 
    Hi,

from my point of view another shift of the vote on my proposal 
"extension of vertical relation values for certain anchor types" is not 
needed.
Reasons:
- For me it looks like that the amendments made by Florian does not 
touch my intrinsic feature proposal, but provide a useful clarification 
for the properties, which are touched by my proposal.
- We should demonstrate progress on finishing ODF 1.2. That we need at 
least 7 weeks to accept/reject such a small proposal does not 
demonstrate such progress.

I propose the following:
- The TC should vote on my proposal in the next call. If the vote result 
considering Florian's negative vote would change the from "approval" to 
"rejection", we should again shift the vote until Florian's concerns are 
  solved.
- The TC should vote, if the TC want to consider Florian's proposal to 
add clarifications to the properties, which are touched my proposal. If 
the vote is positive, these clarification should be worked out by 
Florian. [Note: I personally support such clarifications and expect a 
positive vote on it. But I think further work is needed to finalize them.]
- Florian should try to reply to my questions/comments to his made 
amendments until the TC call on Monday. Then the TC can consider this 
reply during the TC call on Monday. I can imagine that Florian's reply 
would finalize the clarifications to the properties, which are touched 
by my proposal. In this case the TC can directly vote on these 
clarification to include them into ODF 1.2


Best regards, Oliver.

Florian Reuter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> ups --- mixed it up. I thought Rob was talkting about the vertl-rels...
> 
> Rob/Oliver: Please kindly also defere the vote on the vert-rels until I had a chance to address the questions in the TC.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ~Florian
> 
> 
>>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems


  • 3.  Re: [office] regrets

    Posted 07-24-2008 14:20 


    Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM wrote on 07/24/2008
04:53:15 AM:
    
>
    
> from my point of view another shift of the vote on my proposal
    
> "extension of vertical relation values for certain anchor types"
is not
    
> needed.
    

    I will certainly respect the wishes of a TC member
to remove discussion or vote of their proposal from a given meeting's agenda,
if they are not able to attend.  If the TC member has the right to
ask for their proposal to be discussed or voted on, then they certainly
have the right to postpone that discussion or vote. 

    However, I do not believe that a member, by their
absence, may cause the discussion or vote of another member's proposal
to be postponed.  The exception would be if several members were absent
and that caused us to fail to meet quorum requirements. 

    -Rob


Related Content