> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gershon L Joseph [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, 2007 January 08 04:17
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes:
> 2 January 2007
>
>
> Grosso, Paul wrote:
> > With due respect to (and appreciation for) Gershon's
> > minute taking, there are several points that I believe
> > may need correcting in last meeting's minutes.
>
> Nice to know someone reads the minutes :)
And I know how hard it is to take minutes (I do it for
several W3C groups), and I do really appreciate the fact
that you do it almost every week.
> >> Michael moves to deprecate otherprops in favor
> >> of adding new attributes.
> >
> > That was not my understanding.
> >
> > I understood that we were just deprecating the grouped
> > value syntax in otherprops. I did not understand us to
> > be deprecating the otherprops attribute completely.
> >
> > I request that we clarify this decision and correct the
> > minutes as appropriate.
>
> From Michael's email to the list, I thought the same as
> Paul. However,
> during the actual meeting, I understood we were discussing
> removing the
> otherprops attribute. It may well be my misunderstanding. Please can
> someone clarify so I can correct the minutes if required.
Michael, Don, perhaps one of you can clarify.
> >>
> >> Discussion on whether implementations must support
> >> deprecated elements. Consensus that they do not
> >> have to support deprecated elements.
> >
> > I don't remember an official vote/decision on this--did I
> > miss something here?
> >
> > I thought we just had a non-normative discussion about what
> > implementations--in particular, the toolkit--should do about
> > the deprecated grouped value syntax for otherprops.
> >
> > Besides, it makes no sense to have any actual vote/decision
> > on this unless we plan to put something normative into the
> > spec about support for deprecated things, and I don't remember
> > seeing any suggested wording for such.
> >
> > Assuming my memory of the status of this discussion is correct,
> > I request that the minutes be corrected to reflect this.
>
> I wrote "consensus", not "DECISION".
> When there is a vote, I write "DECISION:" followed by a
> description of
> the actual formal decision taken by the TC. The "DECISION" is
> preceded
> by who moved, and whether there were any objections.
>
> OTOH "consensus" is an informal agreement, not a formal TC decision.
>
> If you prefer that I use other terms, please send me the terms you'd
> like me to use with a description of when to use each one.
OK, perhaps I am just suffering from terminology confusion here.
In the W3C, we make most of our decisions by consensus, so when
we write "consensus" in W3C minutes, it is a group decision.
If the group has a discussion and tends to come to agreement on
something that isn't an official decision, I tend to use the
phrasing "the WG [or TC] AGREED that...."
I'm not sure what the official OASIS meaning of "consensus" is,
but that's not important to me now. I'm happy to take your
meaning of consensus--now that I understand it--as long as we
agree that no change to the spec came out of this discussion.
paul
