Re: Extensibility for constraints and registry

* Martin Thomson wrote:
>On 25 November 2013 02:08, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> I don't recommend it.
>
>I think that Dom is pointing out that the W3C analogue of "IETF
>review" is appropriate here, and draws the conclusion that updating
>specs isn't impossible, even outside of this group (when we ultimately
>disband, others can take over).  I'm not 100% sure that this is the
>bar we need here, but it certainly seems to be the case that open
>season isn't going to get us sensible results.

Dominique's proposal is "Expert Review" with Tim Berners-Lee as the
Designated Expert under a process as determined by Tim Berners-Lee.

"IETF review" is completely different from that. Anyone can publish
an Internet-Draft, no membership or other fees required, no need to
convince any Working Group to accept a proposal, and whether a pro-
posal finds consensus is not ultimately determined by one person.

If "IETF review" would be appropriate here, then the Working Group,
by all means, should use that.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 19:29:50 UTC