process topics (re: petname implementation recommendation proposal)

> It seems that we've been able to successfully raise technical issues
> against proposals (e.g., how to bind a petname to a public key). 

By that I presume you mean because someone raises a point and others are 
engaged in the discussion, which moves the issue along, and consensus is 
achieved. Or do you mean something else by "successfully raise [] issues"? 


>  This is good as it results in discussion and then iteration of the 
> proposal.  But we do not see as many usability issues being raised 
> against the proposals.  For example, with petnames, I think before 
> we even debate implementation details, I would question the 

I think it's unlikely that discussion of one sort of issue will preclude 
discussion of other issues. People tend to talk about what's on their mind 
and what they understand. 

> cognitive burden that it places on users.  It requires the user to 
> take extra effort in coming up with a petname for a site, entering 
> it, and then noticing and recognizing it in the future.  This is not
> "cognitively scalable".
> 
> Would it be helpful if we raised usability concerns as "issues" 
> against proposals, rather than having them live on a lonely page on the 
wiki?

If you know how to move the issues along and will work the issues to 
consensus. Otherwise, like other sorts of issues that have been raised, 
they'll languish, no one will come up with any action to resolve them, and 
I'll declare them dead. You may remember several discussions of that form 
when we went through the existing Issues in a sequence of meetings; every 
Issue had to have a next step. Putting something in an Issue means it 
won't get lost; we'll deal with it (or explicitly not deal with it because 
we can't find a way) before LC. And we have an outline of best practices 
of what makes a "good" Issue at: 
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/WriteGoodIssue

        Mez