- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:49:59 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa, it's just that I think a *lot* of bad mood could be avoided if there was a time window between edits on the I-D and the actual submission. As you have seen, many of the changes you made *are* controversial. So maybe the approach the WG is/was using for the ACL draft makes more sense (submit when stable instead of submit when new)? Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:44 PM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt > > > > > but I really have a problem with the process here. Why is the I-D > > submitted > > *before* there is consensus on the changes? > > > To be clear, I thought that for all the issues in the draft, either: > - they weren't controversial, > - OR they were controversial but consensus (not unanimity) was close. > > And in any case, it's the exact wording that needs to be seen to > determine real consensus. When I-D's are published, it's correct to > publish them to the I-D repository, rather than just circulate them on > the list. If we were only to circulate a RFC2518-bis text document on > the DAV list, then non-list-members wouldn't have the same awareness and > accessibility to the document that they have if documents are published > correctly. > > Also, I thought this goes without saying, but nobody is implying that > this I-D is anywhere ready for WG last call. There are major unresolved > issues. > > We always encourage discussion and if desired straw polls on the list. > > lisa >
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 12:50:31 UTC