Re: TPE Editorial Proposal to Remove Another Hard Dependency on the Compliance Specification

On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:11 PM, David Wainberg wrote:

> Matthias,
> What I don't understand about this is why, if Roy can unilaterally add the T without group discussion or consensus, Jack's proposal is being rejected by the chairs out of hand? 

I changed the duo TSV of "1" or "3" to a "T" as part of the directive to
remove indicators of compliance from the protocol.  That has had plenty
of discussion, both prior to the change and after I described the change.
It even provoked a related CfO.

This is hardly an opportunity to criticize the chairs -- Matthias was
just asking questions in order to elicit some clue as to why the suggested
change might be needed.

I am the one who rejected the addition of "R" (or at least the suggestion
that it is an editorial change).  The change to "T" wasn't an editorial
change either -- it was a proposal by an editor to the WG after discussion
amongst the editorial group (including chairs).  That's why it was
described in the message that Jack quoted.

In any case, this whole discussion seems to be based on a failure to
understand what the "T" TSV means and how it would be used by servers.
We should use that as a hint on where the TPE description needs
improvement, rather than continue to waste time on process discussions
or cloud them with whinging about past decisions that are now closed.



Received on Saturday, 8 March 2014 05:44:58 UTC