These proposals are already design approved. There
were 2 levels of approval: proposal approval and design approval. These
proposals have already passed the second stage of approval, meaning that their
detailed designs have been approved.
Chris
From: Dana Spradley
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006
5:48 PM
To: Michael Priestley
Cc: Chris Wong;
; JoAnn Hackos
Subject: Re: [dita]
Reapproving approved proposals
is that really our process Don?
maybe I'm
getting senile or something, but I thought approving a proposal only gave the
author(s) the go-ahead to work out the final design - and didn't imply we
approved the rough sketch given in the proposal as if it were the final
design
Michael Priestley wrote:
>Do you mean we should worry about
work done by teams in advance of final design approval?
There's a fine semantic distinction here - we gave
design approval to these features some time ago, in a formal TC vote. What
reason would a development team have for thinking those designs weren't final?
I certainly thought they were final.
If we're on the same page, and we can get approval on a design that
meets Paul's concerns with minimal breakage to the existing proposal, then
great. I'm glad you agree that this should not be a precedent for generally
reopening the issues.
Michael
Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Dana Spradley <>
08/09/2006 05:04 PM
To
Dana Spradley <>
cc
Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Chris Wong <>,
,
JoAnn Hackos <>
Subject
Re: [dita] Reapproving approved
proposals
What a minute - maybe I missed something in your message
Michael:
We are missing committed
dates with teams that have invested considerable development team in a design
they thought was stable.
Do you mean we
should worry about work done by teams in advance of final design
approval?
--Dana
Dana Spradley wrote:
I think we're saying the same thing, Michael, in
different ways: let's bring this to a vote, and if the design fails to earn a
majority, let's drop it and move on.
I don't want to revisit the issue
already compromised on - but just recall it, to remind the TC that some of us
never considered this a very important enhancement anyway.
Michael Priestley wrote:
Given that each feature has been approved by a majority vote of the
TC, should it require a majority vote of the TC to re-open? Otherwise the
original vote has no meaning.
I think it's important that this particular design
revisit is managed quickly and without it becoming a precedent that tosses out
our existing investment in process. If the subteam can't come to an agreement
by Tuesday's meeting I think it should go to a vote as to whether the design
should be opened at all. I do think Paul has legitimate concerns, but I also
think this shouldn't open the door to revisit every compromise we've managed
to achieve in the last year.
We are missing committed dates with teams that have
invested considerable development team in a design they thought was stable.
Our credibility with our development community is on the line.
Michael Priestley
IBM
DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Dana Spradley
<>
08/09/2006 12:25 PM
To
Dana Spradley
<>
cc
JoAnn Hackos <>, Chris Wong <>,
Subject
Re: [dita] Reapproving approved
proposals
Actually, on second
thought, and as a matter of principle, I don't know - when it comes to
approving a design, maybe we should be able to resurrect old objections if the
final design doesn't satisfy and instead begs all these old questions
over again.
Nothing's in the standard until the design is approved -
and even then, at some later date we could all decide we did something wrong,
and deprecate the solution until it can be eliminated from the
standard.
--Dana
Dana Spradley wrote:
I agree. If opposing this innovation had
been important to me, I should have done so before we approved the
proposal.
On the other hand, I would like to question Chris's notion
that since topics appear in the table of contents, they shouldn't appear in
the index.
The index provides an alternative, alphabetical method for
looking up topics of interest - instead of going over the TOC with a fine
tooth comb to find what you're interested in.
And I think that may turn
out to be how many authors end up using the index range feature - to index
entire topics.
Should the implemention give them some easy method to
accomplish that - by inserting one element instead of
two?
--Dana
JoAnn Hackos wrote:
Hi Chris et al.
We're just speculating about the
concept of page range. I'm sure we all continue to agree that page ranges are
appropriate for the model. I was part of the earlier debate, as you
know.
Let's concentrate on the mechanism. However, it is still a good
idea to advocate best practices in white papers on the indexing issue, just as
we have tried to do with the Translation SC's best practice on indexing. You
don't have to do it this way, but it might help.
Let's all focus on the
mechanism at this point.
JoAnn
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech
Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver CO
80215
303-232-7586
From: Chris Wong [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:37 AM
To:
Subject: [dita] Reapproving approved proposals
This is more of a procedural
question here, touched off by our reopening the indexterm debate. Months ago,
we spent weeks debating, compromising and writing up proposals, DTDs and
language reference material for indexing enhancements. We voted twice to
approve this. But now the whole thing is reopened for debate and it looks like
everything is up for grabs again.
What does it mean to approve something, if it can come
apart at any time?
Chris
