I want to erase a misconception. OASIS is a standards development organization. Their work products are specifications, not code. The closest to code are schemas (in Relax NG in the case of ODF) for the XML structures that carry the ODF document representation.
The specifications do require expertise, but the intention is that someone "skilled in the art" could independently produce a conforming implementation without having to look at any code of an implementation. (That's the ideal; I think it is safe to say that the ODF specification is still a bit immature in that respect. It will improve over time.)
Programmers might or might not be inclined to do what it takes to digest one of these applications and provide QA and clarifying text improvements. Fewer seem inclined to engage in the task of creating such specifications.
While the first-line of users are adopters of specifications in implementations, it is desirable to have participation of others, just as it is important at Apache and TDF. It is just that the bug reports are not about implementations, but questions and comments on a specification.
People here who participate in the OASIS OpenDocument TC include Regina Henschel, who has been diligent in reviewing and questioning definitions of spreadsheet functions in ODF, and Thorsten Behrens, who does bring a strong implementer perspective. Charles Schulz of TDF is on the OASIS Board. There may be others but I've recognized these three in recent contributions on this list.
- Dennis
PS: I'll wager that the ODF specifications themselves have not been a topic of discussion among ODFAuthors. I'd be delighted if they were, though there is a distance from what the format is and users experience of software that supports the format.