Re: [CfC] Re: Consensus gathering for the Dezippering issue

Olivier Thereaux writes:

> On 3 Dec 2013, at 19:58, Chris Lowis <chris.lowis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On the call the participants reached a consensus to:
>>
>> 1) Keep dezippering in the spec
>> 2) Apply it universally to all parameters (such that there are no
>> "edge cases" in the spec
>> 3) Define it in terms of one of the other methods (probably
>> exponentialRampToValueAtTime) to simplify the spec and also to
>> indicate to developers how to achieve parameter changes without
>> dezippering by using those methods directly.
>>
>> I think Olivier would like to consider this a Call for Consensus, so
>> if I've missed anything, please say so. Otherwise, if we agree on the
>> above approach then we can start turning this into a PR against the
>> current spec.
>
> Yes. Let's set a deadline on now()+1 week (that is 2013-12-11) for consensus
> on the approach.
>
> By that I mean:
>
> * Consensus on point 1) above
> * Consensus on point 2) above
> * Consensus in principle on point 3) above, excluding detailed agreement on
> how we will define it for each/all parameters.

Do you mean this?:

* Consensus on 1.
* Consensus on doing whatever is necessary on all parameters (see 3).
* Consensus on requiring implementations to select a suitable
  transition for the parameter such that no audible additional
  components are introduced by the change in value.

Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 21:19:50 UTC