okay, then maybe it's just the documentation of our
process on the Wiki that's at fault - where no mention is made of these
two distinct phases - and not my memory:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/AcceptedAndCandidate
Chris Wong wrote:
These proposals are already design
approved. There were 2 levels of approval: proposal approval and
design approval. These proposals have already passed the second stage
of approval, meaning that their detailed designs have been approved.
Chris
is that really our process Don?
maybe I'm getting senile or something, but I thought approving a
proposal only gave the author(s) the go-ahead to work out the final
design - and didn't imply we approved the rough sketch given in the
proposal as if it were the final design
Michael Priestley wrote:
>Do you mean we should worry about
work done by teams in advance of final design approval?
There's a fine semantic
distinction here - we gave design approval to these features some time
ago, in a formal TC vote. What reason would a development team have for
thinking those designs weren't final? I certainly thought they were
final.
If we're on the same page, and we
can get approval on a design that meets Paul's concerns with minimal
breakage to the existing proposal, then great. I'm glad you agree that
this should not be a precedent for generally reopening the issues.
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
What a minute - maybe I missed
something in your message Michael:
We are missing committed dates
with teams that have invested considerable development team in a design
they thought was stable.
Do you mean we should worry about work
done by teams in advance of final design approval?
--Dana
Dana Spradley wrote:
I think we're saying the same thing,
Michael, in different ways: let's bring this to a vote, and if the
design fails to earn a majority, let's drop it and move on.
I don't want to revisit the issue already compromised on - but just
recall it, to remind the TC that some of us never considered this a
very important enhancement anyway.
Michael Priestley wrote:
Given that each feature has been approved by a majority vote of the TC,
should it require a majority vote of the TC to re-open? Otherwise the
original vote has no meaning.
I think it's important that this particular design revisit is managed
quickly and without it becoming a precedent that tosses out our
existing investment in process. If the subteam can't come to an
agreement by Tuesday's meeting I think it should go to a vote as to
whether the design should be opened at all. I do think Paul has
legitimate concerns, but I also think this shouldn't open the door to
revisit every compromise we've managed to achieve in the last year.
We are missing committed dates with teams that have invested
considerable development team in a design they thought was stable. Our
credibility with our development community is on the line.
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Actually, on second thought, and as a matter of principle, I don't know
- when it comes to approving a design, maybe we should be able to
resurrect old objections if the final design doesn't satisfy and
instead begs all these old questions over again.
Nothing's in the standard until the design is approved - and even then,
at some later date we could all decide we did something wrong, and
deprecate the solution until it can be eliminated from the standard.
--Dana
Dana Spradley wrote:
I agree. If opposing this innovation had been important to me, I should
have done so before we approved the proposal.
On the other hand, I would like to question Chris's notion that since
topics appear in the table of contents, they shouldn't appear in the
index.
The index provides an alternative, alphabetical method for looking up
topics of interest - instead of going over the TOC with a fine tooth
comb to find what you're interested in.
And I think that may turn out to be how many authors end up using the
index range feature - to index entire topics.
Should the implemention give them some easy method to accomplish that -
by inserting one element instead of two?
--Dana
JoAnn Hackos wrote:
Hi Chris et al.
We're just speculating about the concept of page range. I'm sure we all
continue to agree that page ranges are appropriate for the model. I was
part of the earlier debate, as you know.
Let's concentrate on the mechanism. However, it is still a good idea to
advocate best practices in white papers on the indexing issue, just as
we have tried to do with the Translation SC's best practice on
indexing. You don't have to do it this way, but it might help.
Let's all focus on the mechanism at this point.
JoAnn
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver CO 80215
303-232-7586
joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
From: Chris Wong [mailto:cwong@idiominc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:37 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] Reapproving approved proposals
This is more of a procedural question here, touched off by our
reopening the indexterm debate. Months ago, we spent weeks debating,
compromising and writing up proposals, DTDs and language reference
material for indexing enhancements. We voted twice to approve this. But
now the whole thing is reopened for debate and it looks like everything
is up for grabs again.
What does it mean to approve something, if it can come apart at any
time?
Chris
|