On Aug 9, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
If you limit your list to open issues that have been unresolved for
at least 6 months without meaningful progress (with reference to an
issue tracker issue, or a mailing list post, dating back at least 6
months) and if you remove the other (seemingly unintended) technical
differences from Ian's draft (such as adding back the Database
section), then I will support publication of your draft in addition
to Ian's.
I don't think I can sign on to marking up a seemingly arbitrary grab
bag of issues.
To clarify somewhat: the 6 month threshold is one example of a rule I
could support. But I would find a wide range of rules acceptable. My
only hard requirements are:
(a) The rule has to have a reasonable relationship to what can be
considered a "controversial open issue"
(b) The rule has to be reasonably objective.
(c) The rule should not be so broad that it would apply to almost
every open issue.
(d) It needs to be stated clearly what the rule is.
If any issue gets this kind of distinctive marker, then I will expect
the Chairs to make it a high priority to promptly bring it to a
definitive resolution.
Regards,
Maciej
