Re: Please Open ISSUE-34 (good standing)

On Sep 16, 2014, at 20:41 , Robin Berjon <> wrote:

> On 16/09/2014 17:03 , Daniel Glazman wrote:
>> On 16/09/2014 16:13, David (Standards) Singer wrote:
>>>> I agree that it has problems, thatís why I want to make it an
>>>> available tool rather than an automatic one
>> Then I suggest to move, for normal WGs (ie not the TAG nor AB), the
>> Standing provisions from Process to Charters. I am quite sure this
>> will mean the extinction of Standing in the near-term future.
> I agree. Ideally, I would like the Process document to be short enough that it can fit relatively comfortably in someone's head. The problem when that is not the case is that people don't read it, or misremember, which leads to all manners of things being claimed to be in the process when they're not.
> I see where Dave is coming from here, but I don't think that the toolbox should be in the Process document. We could easily have a library of things that charters (which could also use being shorter and with a lot less useless boilerplate) could simply link to.

sure, agreed.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 10:06:14 UTC