Re: substantive semantics change?

> Procedural irregularity is not enough.

<style angry="on">
??? quote chapter and verse 

We received last call comments after our PR vote within the comments deadline 
concerning these issues. I draw attention to the lack of wisdom in having the 
PR vote before the last call had finished and was assured that the chairs 
would reopen if substantive issues materialized (it is not clear to me yet 
that they have, but I fear so).

I have also drawn attention to the apparent irregularities in a timely 
fashion.
<style angry="off">

While I am unable to consult with the key HP developer, my sense of what HP 
would like is for the working group, at the next telecon, to consider the 
question of making the proposed substantive change or not.

If we decide to make the change, then this can be duly recorded, and shown in 
the change log of the semantics document, and in our call to advance, with 
appropriate rationale.

If we decide not to make the change, then the decision to go to PR should be 
amended slightly, requiring the semantics editor to make (hopefully slight) 
changes to his current draft before publishing as proposed recommendation.
HP will argue not to make the change.

Perhaps voicing this second option as reopening the PR decision was to 
overstate it.

The current semantics editors draft appears inadequate to me to go forward 
since it is substantively different from the LC2 document, and that 
substantive change is not recorded as such (for example including a link to a 
WG decision). Hence, *some* change is needed before the conversation with the 
director. IMO, the appropriate way to decide what change is to have a 
discussion at Friday's telecon.

Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 08:28:14 UTC