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
