> So, _I_ was replying to a 6-month-old message.
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this quote, or with the
> subject. Perhaps you'd like to clarify?
If you remember the fable about the emperor, the tailors, and the emperor's new
clothes, I'll paraphrase:
"The Emperor Has No Standards Documents".
In more than two years of trying, *zero* standards documents have been
published and only two have moved beyond 2nd call, one to die somewhere in
review, and the other to late objections that should have been submitted and
handled long before 2nd call. I'd like to know how you two plan to change that.
I understand volunteers, day jobs, etc., but at the end of the day, something
needs to get produced.
Responding to a 6 month old note is a great illustration. I'm asking what
you're going to do to actually produce a functioning process, because the
current one clearly isn't working (measured by the output of said process).
> I can't comment on anything, because I'm not up to speed yet. When I am, I
> still don't think I'll be able to tell you much. There is no hard schedule
> for
> getting documents done; that depends on how much time people have to
> contribute to discussions and edit and review documents.
> A document is done when it's done, and we have consensus on it, not when
> some arbitrary deadline passes.
As I understand the job of a chair, you're managing the process of producing
standards documents, which IMHO, also includes trying to ensure that the
process doesn't stall because no one has committed enough time or resources to
do their part of the process. If someone's swamped, then finding someone else
to take over falls into that bucket. At some point, waiting for the perfect
consensus becomes ridiculous -- we have been waiting for review commentary on
Derrick's draft for more than 6 months with zero accountability to produce
same, and the document was discussed months (if not years) before that. So,
either pick another reviewer and let's get on with it, or there isn't anything
to say, declare it so, and let's get on with it. At some point, there needs to
be an end to waiting for input. Rough consensus and running code; if it's not
perfect, we fix it in a subsequent revision.
As the chairs (or even as a chair-elect), I'd think it reasonable to ask
whether you have a plan to move that process forward. If not, then let's quit
wasting a lot of people's time and effort.
So, then, chairs and chair-elect, a question: What are your goals for getting
some documents done and published in the next year? 2 documents? 3? 5? If you
don't have plans to move the project forward, then when do you expect to have
some? What are your expectations for commitment to getting documents done? What
resources do you need?
T��֧u�6����j)b�
b��K{-jwZ�سjب��^��좸!���X���)zv�����f��f��X��)ߣ���{-jwZ�سjب
