Re: Doubts about the proposal to resolve ISSUE-5 [WAS: Teleconference.2008.07.09/Agenda]

On Jul 10, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> Bijan,
> There seems to be some confusion here about the process we have  
> adopted for resolving issues (for which I don't make any claims  
> other than that it *is* the one we have adopted). Issues are added  
> to the "proposals to resolve" section of the agenda not whenever a  
> proposal is made, but when the chairs believe that there is a  
> consensus around such a proposal. Unless the teleconf discussion  
> rapidly confirms the chairs' belief, the issue is put back on the  
> "further discussion needed" list.
> In this case, it didn't seem to us when we were preparing the  
> agenda that your proposed resolution was likely to be approved  
> without at least a great deal of debate. We therefore left the  
> issue in the "issue discussion" part of the agenda. I think that  
> events proved us right -- we spent quite a while discussing it and  
> *still* didn't reach an agreement.

Fair enough. My impression before last week is that I put forth a  
proposal to resolve and there was a lot of support and no further  
discussion, including no presentation of the argument in favor of  
removing any sort of punning. That seemed to be consensus time. I.e.,  
there was no expressed opposition to my proposal on the mailing list  
until later.

It might be helpful to take the temperature of the group on this  
issue (e.g., a straw poll). AFAICT, Science Commons is the only  
organization supporting this, but perhaps they're only the most  
vocal. If this is true, then I think the more helpful course of  
action would be for them to make the case as strongly as they can and  
see if it gets more WG support. If not, then they might consider  
whether they want to continue with their proposal for a design change.


Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 20:35:04 UTC