RE: Issue Group 5 BALLOT

[Darren Platt <dplatt@securant.com>]

I think the right thing to do here is to process the votes and proceed with
the voted actions.  We could then capture people's comments in the issues
doc in a section for each issue called something like 'Ballot Comments',
attributing the comments to the people who make them.

What will happen is that while people are thinking these isses through in
order to vote, they will come up with more detail that they will want to
capture about a requirement, and need a place to put it.  I think that we
shouldn't lose this detail, but instead capture it.

I don't think everyone's comments were intended this way, though, so perhaps
what we should do is ask that people are clear about what they would like to
happen when they make a comment - to have it noted on the issue list,
whether it should be directly attributed to them, to open a new issue, or
simply to have everyone know where they stand.

Darren



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Prodromou
> [mailto:evan@priss.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us]On
> Behalf Of Evan Prodromou
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 10:37 AM
> To: 'UseCaseList '
> Subject: Re: Issue Group 5 BALLOT
>
>
> So, just a process question, here. If I understand the process so far,
> it's been like this:
>
>         * We posted a straw man draft to get things going.
>
>         * Discussion on this list and on concalls brought about issues
>           that Darren and I captured for the issues list.
>
>         * Member chose to champion those issues, which may be vaguely
>           stated, and make them into clear, ballotable statements
>           about the use case document itself.
>
>         * They posted those re-written issues to this list, and edited
>           them afterwards if people objected to the wording or
>           direction.
>
>         * If noone objected, the issues they had written went to a
>           vote.
>
>         * We voted on each issue, as stated.
>
> I guess I'm just wondering what the "Yes, but..." answers are supposed
> to mean for the document we will put out on Monday. In my mind, an
> issue that passes the vote should go in or out of the main document as
> stated.
>
> It seems that the time to change wording for issues, make further
> comment, etc. was during the last two weeks. Once stuff actually got
> to ballot, it -should- be in a form that each of us feels comfortably
> expresses the issue.
>
> I'd be OK with adding the qualified yeses from Jeff's mail as new
> issues, but I don't know how much latitude we have to manipulate the
> input once it's been voted on.
>
> ~ESP
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: security-use-request@lists.oasis-open.org
>