RE: [dita] DITA 1.3 Proposal Process

["Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>]

Nudged by Gershon's spoken desire to look a bit longer at phase 2 of the
process, I revisited it. Five voter responses are listed for phase 2:

1. Yes.
2. Sure, whatever. Not enough interest to try to understand fully, but
no objection to moving forward.
3. No.
4. Do not understand - the proposal as written and described does not
make sense.
5. Have reservations (or some better name) - meaning "I'm not sure I can
or care to invest the time to understand this fully, but I don't think
the explanation of the use case warrants going any further with this."

Essentially, this amounts to Yes vs. No, with an invitation to elaborate
on the reasons for one's vote--especially a no vote.

1. Yes. 
Optionally can stipulate that this is an uninformed 'no objection' vote.

2. No. 
Optionally can stipulate:
a. Need clarification or more info.
b. Don't want clarification or more info, it doesn't seem worth the
effort. This is an uninformed (don't care to drill into it) vote, but
the use case is unconvincing. 

The 'annotations' to a No vote are to guide the proposer(s) in recasting
the proposal for a new submission (or not).

Obviously, phase one may also run into objections, reservations, and
requests for more information. The difference is that at stage 2
everyone expects to understand the proposal well (or not care). At stage
1 all that must be clear is the problem or use case, and if a solution
is proposed no one expects it to be water-tight.

There's a second 'annotation' possibility for a Yes vote, what Quakers
call 'standing aside'. A person may register their concerns or
reservations for the record, but be willing to stand aside so as not to
block approval. This can be an important option if the vote is close or
if (like the Quakers) we seek unanimity.

	/B