Re: Split Issue 30?

On Feb 10, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>> I dislike this characterization and the innuendo that people may be playing
>> tricks.
> I am sorry you dislike it. But re-ordering issues to strengthen one
> proposal over another is not equitable.

I think that the key consideration for the Working Group should be to ensure that every issue and every proposal gets fair consideration. This needs to take priority over considerations of which proposal benefits.

It seems to me that your argument is purely based on giving a tactical advantage to the "Instate Longdesc" Change Proposal, not on making sure that *all* proposals  get a fair hearing, with all possible information on the table. I can understand why you would feel that way; it's natural to want to advocate for your preferred proposal. But I think it is unlikely that the Chairs would give a lot of weight to that type of argument, because our job is to ensure that the process is fair to everyone, not to help a particular side win.

While the Chairs rarely order issues for the sake of dependencies, I have to agree with Sam that the last thing we want is for ISSUE-30 to get reopened yet another time.


Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 18:58:22 UTC