Re: Update shortcuts summary and discussion


On 17 Nov 2010, at 02:09, Axel Polleres wrote:

> Dear all,
> we still couldn't reach agreement on the update shortcuts emtirely. In principle there are two competing proposals on the table:
> PROPOSED: Add update shortcuts in LC marked explicitly "AT RISK" and asking for feedback, explicitly about potentially complicating the language, and implementation experience.
> vs.
> PROPOSED: postpone ISSUE-59 
> We only voted formally on the former (that would imply closing ISSUE-59) but got a lot of abstentions (4 +1,5 abstain or 0, 0 -1) and there was reservations on going forward with this as a resolution today. The latter had some friends in the group, but I didn't want to vote over it without hearing Alex' opinion.

My preference will be for the first option - if we explicitly ask for feedback / objections from the community when publishing the LC.



> So, my goal would be - without tow much further discussion - put these two up for vote again next time and go with the less controversial one. By less controversial, I mean 
> a) nobody lying on the road in front of it
> b) less abstentions
> in that order of priority.
> Axel

Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <> .

Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 13:17:58 UTC