Re: CfC: Adopt Proposed Decision Policy

Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>
>>> What the process does not provide for is a way to escalate to the tracker
>>> before the editor of the relevant draft has weighed in. I'm hesitant to
>>> change that at this time, for a few reasons:
>> It just occured to me that *theoretically* this places the editor in a
>> position of creating a denial of service attack -- simply by not responding.
>>  Note: I said theoretically; the reason this never occurred to me before as
>> I don't expect this ever to happen in this working group.
>>
>> My preference for how to handle purely theoretical issues is to address them
>> if and when they actually occur by adjusting the process at that time.
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> This procedure was supposedly being put in place in order to ensure
> that problems don't arise, and folks were asked to provide comments
> before a deadline of November 11.
> 
> Now, you all are telling me that we should wait until problems arise,
> and then address the issue. And, as Maciej stated further down this
> message, if I continue expressing a comment, or ask for modification
> in the procedure, everything has to go back to the beginning, the
> clock is reset.

That's not what I meant, and I apologize that it came out that way.

I, personally, prefer to focus primarily on problems that we have 
actually seen instances of rather than on potential problems that I see 
as purely theoretical.  I also note that any policy that we adopt will 
be something we can tweak.  Others may feel differently, and if so, 
that's entirely OK with me.  I did not intend to squelch input.

I agree with Maciej that we should give people adequate time to agree 
with the final form of the proposal, and that if the proposal changes 
materially that we need to extend the time for review accordingly.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 14:25:01 UTC