W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Process on open RFC2518bis issues

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:39:48 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF77498895.5DD39FE5-ON852570F5.0070CF40-852570F5.00718244@us.ibm.com>
I agree with Julian.  What needs consensus is that a given draft
should be published.  The approach one uses to reach such a draft
can vary greatly.  Getting working group consensus on every issue
is one approach to producing a draft, but it is not the only approach,
is not always the best approach, and sometimes is not even a feasible
approach in the presence of time constraints.

Cheers,
Geoff


Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 01/13/2006 03:15:07 PM:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > 
> > Unfortunately, this proposal would violate that idea that a WG needs 
to 
> > determine that at least rough consensus exists within the WG for the 
> > advancement of a document. It would change to where there was not 
> > consensus, then we defaulted to what RFC 2518 says.
> > ...
> 
> Indeed. As a matter of fact that was my understanding about how revising 

> an standards track document should work. If there's no consensus for a 
> change, don't do it.
> 
> The question then is whether the agreed upon changes represent 
> sufficient advance over the previous spec to make publishing it 
worthwhile.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 20:40:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT