The spec. process ...

Hi!

Michael Meeks schrieb:
> 	So - Joerg removed the section I added to deal with
'uncontroversial'
> specifications - ie. ones where Sun (and/or) others
give no input /
> response / whatever after a given period of time - ie.
auto-approving
> them.

Michael is talking about that process (no URL was given):
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Category
:Specification

See what I have written to Michael (he maybe forgot to
forward it)
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Cat
egory_talk:Specification

The difference between Michael's view and the ones from
those who 
*documented* the *already used* process is:

	Specifications are a part of the developent - and
'hackers'
	(Michael's wording) just want to contribute their code
with a
	small barrier.

See the _OOo issue handling_ documentation where FEATUREs
have to be 
integrated with a specification:

	http://qa.op
enoffice.org/issue_handling/

We only have suggested a way how to get these specifications
better - 
there is nothing new (see OOo URL's about i-Teams, CWS
handling etc.).

Hopefully we will find a compromise that these
"hackers" (1) will 
contribute code with a documentation that also testers,
technical 
documentation people, L10N and also marketing will be able
to know what 
to test, to document, to translate and to announce for one
of the next 
releases of OOo.

Greetings
Jogi


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_definition_controv
ersy

-- 
Sun Microsystems GmbH     Joerg Sievers
Nagelsweg 55              Quality Assurance Engineer
D-20097 Hamburg           OpenOffice.org CWS Gatekeeper
http://www.sun.de


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribespecs.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpspecs.openoffice.org