OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gershon L Joseph [mailto:gershon@tech-tav.com] 
> Sent: Monday, 2007 January 08 04:17
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 
> 2 January 2007
> Grosso, Paul wrote:
> > With due respect to (and appreciation for) Gershon's
> > minute taking, there are several points that I believe
> > may need correcting in last meeting's minutes.
> Nice to know someone reads the minutes :)

And I know how hard it is to take minutes (I do it for
several W3C groups), and I do really appreciate the fact
that you do it almost every week.

> >>         Michael moves to deprecate otherprops in favor
> >>         of adding new attributes. 
> > 
> > That was not my understanding.
> > 
> > I understood that we were just deprecating the grouped 
> > value syntax in otherprops.  I did not understand us to 
> > be deprecating the otherprops attribute completely.
> > 
> > I request that we clarify this decision and correct the 
> > minutes as appropriate.
>  From Michael's email to the list, I thought the same as 
> Paul. However, 
> during the actual meeting, I understood we were discussing 
> removing the 
> otherprops attribute. It may well be my misunderstanding. Please can 
> someone clarify so I can correct the minutes if required.

Michael, Don, perhaps one of you can clarify.

> >>
> >>         Discussion on whether implementations must support
> >>         deprecated elements.  Consensus that they do not
> >>         have to support deprecated elements.
> > 
> > I don't remember an official vote/decision on this--did I 
> > miss something here?
> > 
> > I thought we just had a non-normative discussion about what
> > implementations--in particular, the toolkit--should do about
> > the deprecated grouped value syntax for otherprops.
> > 
> > Besides, it makes no sense to have any actual vote/decision 
> > on this unless we plan to put something normative into the
> > spec about support for deprecated things, and I don't remember
> > seeing any suggested wording for such.
> > 
> > Assuming my memory of the status of this discussion is correct,
> > I request that the minutes be corrected to reflect this.
> I wrote "consensus", not "DECISION".
> When there is a vote, I write "DECISION:" followed by a 
> description of 
> the actual formal decision taken by the TC. The "DECISION" is 
> preceded 
> by who moved, and whether there were any objections.
> OTOH "consensus" is an informal agreement, not a formal TC decision.
> If you prefer that I use other terms, please send me the terms you'd 
> like me to use with a description of when to use each one.

OK, perhaps I am just suffering from terminology confusion here.

In the W3C, we make most of our decisions by consensus, so when
we write "consensus" in W3C minutes, it is a group decision.
If the group has a discussion and tends to come to agreement on
something that isn't an official decision, I tend to use the
phrasing "the WG [or TC] AGREED that...."

I'm not sure what the official OASIS meaning of "consensus" is,
but that's not important to me now.  I'm happy to take your
meaning of consensus--now that I understand it--as long as we
agree that no change to the spec came out of this discussion.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]