On 10/25/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is completely silly as has been the vast > majority of this groups activity of the past few weeks.
James, I am going to respond to each of your points as calmly as possible. First off, I don't think I have anything to apologize for. I have produced a good document, something the WG has failed to do. I took the general topic of this list, combined it with my own implementation experience, and wrote it down well. Do you want me to apologize for being a good editor? I think the only problem people have with it is the name at the top, and maybe that I didn't discuss it with them. The reason my document has been the main topic of discussion is because I keep, you know, working on it. It's not my fault the WG draft moves at a glacial pace (ooh, nice pun). > I personally believe that the -05 draft has *significant* problems. I seem to recall being the only person that opposed any of the new material that went into -05. How come you didn't oppose it like I did? Could it be that you had to see my draft to make a comparison? > There isn't a single part of the document that I wouldn't love to see > changed. I flirted with the idea of doing what Robert did and going off > and writing my own version of the draft but to do so would be silly. Well, you don't understand the problem as well as I do, so why would you do that? > I > highly recommend that Robert recast his draft as a series of Pace's that > can be discussed and voted on as individual incremental improvements. The Pace process doesn't seem to result in incremental improvements. It seems to result in large chunks of insane copy that only I oppose. Since I am the only one opposing, I sound like an impractical ninny. Sorry for all that "stop energy". Second, we don't vote. The fact of the matter is that the entire working group didn't say anything about the proposal that made up most of -05. They outvoted me. A triumph of the process? > If Robert doesn't think that such a process would work, then he should > work with the chairs on coming up with a new process that a majority of > us can agree upon. It is not my job or duty to work with the chairs to define the process. I'm quite sure they don't want my input, and I'm quite sure they don't need your agreement to change it. > If he does not want to do that, then he should > rename his draft to something other than "Atom" and proceed on his own. Is there something non-Atom about it? Robert Sayre
