On 08/06/2013 01:58 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/5/2013 6:36 PM, Murray Kucherawy wrote:
Now, if there's a problem with the standards or reality (e.g., shifting
priorities) has evolved sufficiently that they need updating, then there
exist public processes available to any comer for amending them. If
they're broken or obsolete, let's fix them. But if that isn't
happening, maybe the blame isn't rightly placed there after all.
The thread got more abstract than my jet-lag allowed me to track, but
I think the above paragraph reduces things to the essential, pragmatic
point.
That is indeed pragmatic, but something of an aside.
For worthy dialectic disagreements, reality tends to impose a
negotiated settlement having balance. (The only hard part, here, is
determining worthiness, lest crazy extremes get assigned unwarranted
worthiness... but I digress beyond the current thread into other parts
of the real world.)
Certainly.
I'd suggest that this settlement process is not one in which the
participants in specification development / amendment discussions are
passive, rather that there are different approaches that are in
widespread use and which achieve materially different outcomes and am
therefore advocating a specific philosophical approach (roughly: make it
easy for implementers to support ecosystem benefit objectives by
expressing tradeoffs from the perspective of implementer benefit/harm,
instead of or in addition to from the perspective of ecosystem
benefit/harm) which I believe will improve the likelihood of
desired/intended ecosystem benefits being achieved.
If someone thinks the spec should be changed, they raise the
suggestion. If something looking like a rough consensus of the
community agrees, then the spec is changed (and I'm counting validated
errata entries as changing the spec.) Otherwise the suggestion fails.
It's an established, mundane, pragmatic process, and doesn't need
philosophical debate.
I wasn't suggesting any debate on the process for deciding when a
proposed change has sufficient support for it to be incorporated into a
specification.
- Roland
--
Roland Turner | Director, Labs
TrustSphere Pte Ltd | 3 Phillip Street #13-03, Singapore 048693
Mobile: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner
[email protected] | http://www.trustsphere.com/
_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
