[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Reply to: