Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:26:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
> that had better be never. If the intent is for this to be broadly
> adopted, the specification should be fixed as early as possible, and we
> should not adopt a flawed specification inder the guise that it is
> currently "voluntary". Frankly, I think that the spec should have
> optional parts, and parts we need, and we should try to come to an
> consensus on the required part of the spec, and the optional parts
> should be clearly outlined in the specification.
We have been listening to feedback and commentary on the draft proposal for over
a year now, responding and modifying things as appropriate. That process broke
down some time ago, so we have opened dialogues on various mailing lists, and we
are starting DEP 5 to gather feedback.
> Nice sound bite. But a spec or a standard's big value comes if
> it is fixed to be widely accepted, even if it means that some parts of
> the standard are "optional".
I hope that you will contribute your opinion when DEP 5 has a draft to review.
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater