RE: [tag] Re: Done - Re: Ready to start next, potential candidate drafts

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I preferred separate public reviews
for the three CDs.  I just meant that the ballot to go to public review be
separated, at least the first time, from the ballot to approve the set of
latest working drafts as CDs. 

With regard to input during a ballot, we can of course pay attention to
anything arriving via tag-comment and submissions from all members.  But it
is only the action of the voting members at the time that determines
approval of a CD and approval of a Public Review.  

That is also a good reason for separating the approval of a CD from approval
for Public Review, because I don't know what it takes to decide not to do
the Public Review because there are changes we'd prefer to make as a result
of the balloting for CD approval even though the combined ballot passed.
Then you get into rules for reconsideration of passed ballots and approved
motions, etc.

During a public review, there can be comments on the tag list of course and
in meetings, with there being special responsibilities with regard to
comments that come in via tag-comment.

-----Original Message-----
From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Stephen Green
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 13:07
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: Jacques R. Durand; TAG TC
Subject: Re: [tag] Re: Done - Re: Ready to start next, potential candidate
drafts

[ ... ]

I'm not really in favour of separate public reviews though. I get
the impression that related specs are supposed to be put out
together (though we could argue that they are actually distinct).
There are dependencies which mean that a change to one
requires a change to the others (e.g. a change to the markup
requires a change to the guidelines and maybe to the model).
We could get into a mix-up if we had review of one spec then
agreed it but a subsequent review of another spec required us
to go back and change the first. Better, I think, if we can
respond to any comments on either document by changing
potentially all of the documents at the same time following a
simultaneous public review.

Even if we didn't have all our members with voting rights at the
time of a ballot I'm sure we would accommodate the expression
of approval (or otherwise) from those who would normally vote
but might not be able to vote officially - an unofficial vote or just
a statement of agreement on the list would be valuable all the
same. As of course would participation in internal TC review
which is fine even for non-voting members.

[ ... ]