Re: Publication proposal discussion summary

Hi all,

Adding my 2 eurocents (fwiw, just before the telecon), the procedure 
proposed by Alan and Ian seems well balanced, and I support it.

Bijan's proposal, definitely has its merits as well, and I agree with 
the motivation. However I do not share the sense of urgency, and in 
particular with respect to the remark of Jeremy on Bijan's point B:

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>   c) adds to WG sense of ownership of document, which currently belongs 
> to the members who made the submission.

As a relative newcomer to the whole WG-thing, I must say I am somewhat 
taken aback by the healthy enthusiasm/passion of the discussion until 
now  (and for this I +1 Bijan's editorial): it is hard to jump in when 
you feel you are a) still busy catching-up and b) not an author of the 
original submission (too many sensitive toes to trod on).

In short, I agree that we need to have these WD's out preferably before 
the F2F, but I oppose putting too much pressure on the WG.

A sidenote is that if (indeed) the specs/WD will be created en plain 
public on the wiki, some degree of public exposure is already built in.

Best,

	Rinke



-- 
----------------------------------------------
Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl   Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499    Fax:   +31-20-5253495
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.nl/users/rinke

Leibniz Center for Law,         Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,           PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,            The Netherlands
----------------------------------------------