[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Multi-headed indirect links



W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
> 
> This work only started as of last Wednesday's meeting, following the
> holiday hiatus when the ERB could not meet.  I don't know what the editors'
> schedule is, but I would expect to see a draft pretty soon.

That is good news.  I look forward to it.

> My proposal has been out and available for a couple of weeks now, yet
> there's been very little direct comment it on it here in this list, which
> surprises me.  

It surprised me.  I also expected either a counter proposal or a point 
for point analysis.  On the other hand, what I saw there looked 
quite reasonable.  The issue that seemed to be indirectly alluded 
to is the amount of syntax required for simple links. 

But I expected the proposal or debate from the list principals:  aka,
the ERB.

> I expected to see either a counter proposal or some comment
> on the proposal itself.  Given that this was a proposal by a member of the
> ERB and that, in the absence of any other proposal it would almost
> certainly be taken as the base for any ERB-defined design, I don't see how
> the process could be any more open at this point.

That is the point.  You can't see it.  Scary.  Nothing is certain.

Because there was no formal "proposal submitted 
by E. Kimber on (date) has been adopted as the basis for the first 
draft etc.", no one knows whether they should focus on it, or wait 
for the next proposal.  There is no "certainty" without such 
an announcement of intent.  We cannot see or assume much about the 
ERB's business.   Simply have Jon or whoever make such an 
announcement, and have the ERB members conduct debate in the open.
That is an open process.  That is a fundamental of list community 
design:  open debate by the principals.  

We are not a chorus.

Len Bullard


Follow-Ups: References: