Re: Updating Change Proposals for ISSUE-195 form-http-req

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 09:08 AM, Cameron Jones wrote:
>> I ask for direction from the chairs on how to proceed. It is my belief
>> that further work on my proposal would amount to an extraneous expense
>> of effort, however i am more that happy to do so in the pursuit of
>> pre-survey consensus.
> If you feel that you are past the point of diminishing returns, then the
> next step will be a survey.  That likely won't happen this week, so please
> let us know in the next few days if you intend to make further updates.
>> Thanks,
>> Cameron Jones
> - Sam Ruby

I am at the point of having to preempt what concerns may be brought
up, and not reactive to explicitly raised and identified concerns. If
the counter-proposal is not updated then i must assume by inference
that the concerns have been addressed and an effective consensus has
been achieved. There should of course be every opportunity for that
inference to be challenged and the process is a highly valued source
of validation.

The nature of the details section is the only area of the proposal
which i see as requiring more work for the proposal to ultimately be
incorporated into specification. This is probably best addressed by
the editorial team who have more experience in deft articulation of
normative requirements, however the advice from initial chair review
was that this would best be addressed prior to survey. Has the
proposal been clarified enough that this would no longer be seen to be
a pre-surey recommendation?

Cameron Jones

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 15:30:34 UTC