Bryan, I think it is OK if you just use your judgement and simply set up approval ballots shortly after the proposal of an owner is seconded. You may formally ask the TC if anyone wants to raise objections. But, unless the proposal or secondment is withdrawn as result of someone else's valid point being raised, I believe you even cannot decide not to have the ballot..
It is the owner's responsibility and risk if he or she proposes the ballot on something that did not have proper discussion.
Remember, in case even approved features do not make progress, we can park them again..
Rgds
dF
Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 21:25, Schnabel, Bryan S <> wrote:
I kind of like the precedence Yves (and I, imitating him with my styling proposal) is establishing.
By moving for approval of proposed XLIFF 2.0 features on the TC list, and having somebody second, we can hope for good dialog between meetings. We could be that much further ahead by the time the meeting takes place. Maybe we could even hold an official online ballot (in cases where the thread does not indicate a need for meeting discussion).
What if we set up a set of guidelines that went something like this:
1) if a formal request for approval is made on the TC list and seconded X days before the next meeting, and 2) if after Y days it does not receive contrary commentary, 3) the chair shall establish an official online ballot that will last for Z days to pass, reject, or abstain the proposed feature.
The key would be to make sure we don't cut off meaningful discussion. I think the tricky thing might be to make an objective judgment of whether or not 2) is demonstrated.
I'm happy to hear other opinions.
- Bryan
Bryan Schnabel
Content Management Architect
Phone: 503.627.5282
www.tektronix.com
