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 1.3 Proposal Process

Hi Bruce,

As indicated in your note, and in a couple of the comments today, there is
some hesitation about having so many options for voting at step 2.

So, as a reminder - with 1.2, those on the call essentially had 3 options:
1. Outspoken agreement, from the two who moved and seconded
2. Silence
3. Vocal objection

There's been a suggestion that some proposals only got in to 1.2 because
nobody was willing to be the one to say "No". There's also been a
suggestion that this unwillingness to say "No" will not change, which is
why we ended up with several options.

So - I think your breakdown is accurate. It comes down to Yes, Yes (no
objection), No, No (doesn't make sense), and No (not worth it). If we want
to describe the votes that way, that's fine - but I think going to a flat
yes or no, with optional clarification, will get us back to the original
problem that people seem unwilling to vote "No" directly.

As for the "Standing aside" vote - I'm a little reluctant about that only
because I'm afraid it would end up being an easy vote for people who don't
really want to think about the proposal or register any opinion at all,
much like the "silence" option in 1.2. It also feels like this should
qualify as a "no" vote if the vote is already close. That is - standing
aside to allow for unanimity doesn't make sense if people are already
voting no, right? It seems to me that if you have objections, that should
be a no; if you don't have objections, there's the "Allow, but it's not
necessarily something I want" option.


Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit

             "Bruce Nevin                                                  
             <bnevin@cisco.com                                          To 
             >                         Robert D                            
             08/03/2010 12:22          "dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>  
             PM                                                         cc 
                                       RE: [dita] DITA 1.3 Proposal        

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.


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