- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:12:41 -0700
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 7/8/05 2:57 PM, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@osafoundation.org> wrote: >> >> So what's your proposal how we the WG should proceed. In particular, >> what about the state of the issues list I asked about? >> > That's up to Cullen, and I don't know the state of the issues list except > that it's out-of-date. I was trying to get bind and redirect out the door before jumping into 2518 but ... I hoping to get this done with the underlying principle being make the AD's job as easy as possible and after that make the Chair's job as easy as possible :-) 1) So first thing is to get a draft we can talk about, Lisa submitted a rev so we have that. 2) Next is we need to figure out the things people want to change and why. Note I said things people want to change not things people don't like. Complaints without proposal to fix are not as useful as ways to resolve problems. I don't care how the editor of any document wants to keep track of these but I do expect them to be reported to the editor in a way that at least shows up on the email list. 3) I imagine most of these the WG will come to 100% agreement on and I can completely ignore. 4) On the issues where one or more members of the WG disagree, I will want to start an email thread on each issue and try and drive it to consensus. This thread will need to develop enough information that I can provide a useful summary to the ADs and information about why I called or did not call consensus on the topic. If there are so many of these that we can't keep track of them via email threads, then there is clearly no hope of consensus and I will probably recommend not moving the document forward as a WG item. (I'm fine if there are a 100 issues at step 3 but I hope there are less than 10 that make it to step 4). Cullen
Received on Sunday, 14 August 2005 22:14:42 UTC