Motivation as Property or Value (was: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal)

Hi, folks (especially Bill and Benjamin)–

On 8/27/15 8:54 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Doug Scheperswrote:
>     I was surprised that the Roles Note didn't contain an example for
>     the copy-edit use case,
>     [snip]
>     Here is an alternate proposal based on Bill Hunt's suggestion [1],
>     which I'm putting forward as a strawman; [snip]
> This was discussed and discarded in the most recent call. You'll see in
> the minutes of that call (
> ) albiet slightly
> confusedly due to some of the irc lag that of the people that gave an
> opinion:
> Rob, Benjamin, Jacob, Tim, Ivan: -1
> Chris: +1
> It's mentioned in the document as bullet three of the options that were
> considered and discarded in the intro of section 3.
> Compared to the proposal that we gathered consensus around, as described
> in the document:
> Rob, Benjamin, Tim, Jacob, Ivan: +1
> Kyrce: -1
> And the option for adding to both embedded content and specific resource
> which was a very mixed bag.

The structure of that telcon was not really about discussing the various 
merits of the options (this one in particular), but rather to walk 
through the different items (none of which matched my proposed 
compromise) and vote on them. I admit to being lost in this telcon approach.

So, merely listing the results of the poll isn't very enlightening.

>       Both seem to allow for extending the motivations, and would
>     gracefully degrade; a UA can just ignore values it doesn't
>     understand. Both make reasonable sense to me. The second one
>     (Bill's) feels a bit more like it's an analog of element-property
>     syntax, which works well with my brain, and it's a bit less verbose,
>     but maybe there are deeper problems with it?
> Again, I'm afraid I don't know how else to explain the problems in ways
> other than the discussions that have already happened several times already.

There's been a lot of discussion on a lot of related issues; forgive me 
if the details of this particular approach have been discussed before in 
a larger context that I didn't fully understand.

It was helpful for Tim to gather together multiple proposals into a 
single page, but sometimes it seemed like they were tweaking different 
parts of the body structure, so it felt a bit like comparing apples to 
oranges at times. Because all the proposals were clustered, the emails 
around them also mixed different issues, and it was challenging to 
follow at times.

I wanted to surface this particular issue because Bill, like me, may not 
have recognized it in the conversations, and since he is the one who 
proposed it, I thought it best to call it to his attention.

>     Like others, I'd like to close this issue and move on. But I do want
>     to make sure that we're thoughtfully considering our options and our
>     rationales,
> We have and we are :)

Actually, I was hoping that for this issue in particular, we could hear 
back from Bill, Chris, and Benjamin, each of whom I've had some offlist 
conversations about this with.

Bill still seemed uncomfortable with the current proposed approach, so I 
wanted to give him a chance to make his case one last time before we 
moved on. Benjamin also had some clear points to make against Bill's 
approach, so I'd like to hear him articulate those points on the list.

I also found some of Ivan's points against this approach worth 
considering. I'm hoping that by finally airing it as an issue distinct 
from a wide variety of other possible approach, and comparing it only to 
a single alternate approach, we can come to some shared understanding 
and consensus, and move on.


Received on Friday, 28 August 2015 22:15:56 UTC