ISSUE-41/ACTION-97 what's next with decentralized extensibility

This article by Kurt Cagle[1] reminded that the discussion on this 
issue/action item seems to have died out. I realize that without the 
author of the Microsoft proposal being available, it's difficult to 
continue the discussion, but I would really be concerned if it just 
seems to fade away.

I'm only an interested bystander, but there seemed to be three different 
issues involved with the Microsoft extensibility proposal [2]:

1. First there's the proposal itself, and seemingly concern about 
Microsoft's implementation. Seemingly, we're waiting on responses from 
Microsoft folks in this regard. Perhaps someone from Microsoft could 
provide a timeline when answers can be expected.

2. Second, there seems to be confusion about whether the Microsoft 
proposal is a proposal[3]. I really wish that substantive discussions 
would not continue to be reduced to technical requirements, or points of 
order, but I imagine when there are so many issues and concerns, you 
have to grab hold of what you can to attempt to bring about order. It 
would be nice if we could determine if the Microsoft proposal is a 
proposal, and move from this to specifics.

3. Lastly, there seems to be doubt about whether decentralized 
extensibility is even necessary[4], regardless of proposal. If this is 
true, should the WG resolve this, as an issue, first, and then work on 
solutions once the group works past this basic assumption?

I realize the group is busy and there's an extensive list of issues and 
items to work through, but I'm quite concerned when I see a discussion 
begin on something that seems to me to be exceedingly important, only to 
fade away without action or direction.



Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 14:57:03 UTC