Re: QT4CG “Charter and process” proposal

> The key thing in both cases is to be realistic about costs and
> benefits. Standards activities that lose sight of how to balance the
> benefit to the user community against the cost of implementation tend
> to fail. And we're definitely looking here (in my view) to get
> agreement on low-cost high-benefit features. We're also looking
> primarily to users for assessment of the benefit and to implementors
> for assessment of the cost.

Perhaps this offers a way of framing the design goals that’s a little
more neutral to the roles of the participants. Something like:

  For the 4.0 specifications, the CG is focused on delivering the
  highest benefit features that are of moderate cost to specify and
  implement.

It’s usually possible to explain to anyone on a working group why a
particular thing is expensive either to specify, or to implement, or
both.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica