Re: Request for group input on ISSUE-83 (figure and details captions)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> The Decision process has a pretty picture of this:
> We've been through steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and are now at 5.d.  Aryeh, my reading
> of that diagram does not match your understanding.  I see the next step as
> being 6.  Do you read it differently?

Yes, the next step is 6.  This says we make a Working Group decision,
following the Escalation Procedure.  One option there is

"0. Amicable Resolution
At any stage of the process, the issue can be settled amicably, If
spec changes are made that satisfy the person who raised the issue . .
. the issue will be closed by Call for Consensus."

My understanding of Maciej was that he was suggesting that Ian invoke
option 0 here and make a spec change that would satisfy everyone, thus
allowing us to proceed to step 4 "Call for Consensus" and then
(hopefully) step 5.a of the Escalation Process, "Consensus Found".
Whether Ian makes this change is entirely up to him at this point.  If
he does not make any change, or makes a change that's unacceptable to
someone, we will likely have to proceed to step 5.b of the Escalation
Process, "No Clear Consensus", and have a straw poll as for microdata.
 I believe Maciej would like to avoid this if we can use step 5.a

To further clarify what I meant, I was responding to Lachlan's inquiry
as to whether Maciej was "ruling out" certain spec changes.  My
understanding is that the chairs cannot at this stage require or rule
out any action by the editor on this issue, because we're still in the
middle of the Escalation Process (step 3, Discussion) and the Working
Group has not formally reached a decision.  Until such time as the
chairs record a Working Group decision on this issue, any spec changes
are entirely up to the editor's discretion.

Please correct me if any of this is wrong.

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 23:05:15 UTC