Re: process for workprocess cte

[eduardo <Eduardo.Gutentag@eng.sun.com>]

>  Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:40:16 -0800 (PST)
>  From: Jon Bosak <bosak@boethius.eng.sun.com>
>  To: workprocess@lists.oasis-open.org
>  Subject: Re: process for workprocess cte
>  
>  [Eduardo.Gutentag@eng.sun.com:]
>  
>  
>  | I think the following should be added: "The anticipated
>  | lifetime of the committee is [X] months, and a maintenance
>  | committee is/is not foreseent at this time". I think the
>  | person submitting the proposal should specify in the
>  | proposal the anticipated lifetime of the committee.
>  
>  This requirement has caused such an unbelievable amount of trouble in
>  W3C work that we're starting to give up on it.  (I can't go into
>  further detail because I don't know for a fact that all the people on
>  this list are W3C members.)  Both Eduardo Gutentag and David Singer
>  have registered opinions to the contrary, but I maintain that in
>  designing XML standards, the idea that you can force out a usable
>  result by setting a date for completion can easily yield an
>  illustration of Brooks's classic dictum about expecting nine women to
>  have a baby in one month.

Estimating or anticipating the lifetime of an activity is quite
different from appointing a working group for a set number of months
with a set schedule. It's an informative statement rather than
a normative one, and there is no implication of forcing out a result.

Eduardo