Re: [xliff] Re: Ballot on Feature Approval Procedure, XLIFF 2.0 program Charter Draft v0.4 committed to SVN

["Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>]

Yves, thanks for this suggestion. IMHO your proposal is almost equivalent to option 3) in the ballot as proposed by myself. The only difference is that I think only the owner can suggest reconsideration, and becoming an owner is very easy. After the Chair stops actively searching for replacements of "defunct" owners you can simply claim (e-mail, TC meeting, and make the change in wiki, remember all have writing access) ownership of an item who has no active owner or agree with the current owner that you take it over. It would not be nice if anyone could propose features for ballot without an active owner's consent, the owner might be e.g. preparing resubmission and might be unhappy with a too early resubmission.

I can add your proposal as the 4th option if you insist.

Anyway, you all know that I am in favor of 1. or 2., not having a real preference for either 1. or 2.

2. might be perceived as a more elegant and flexible solution along the best traditions of constitutional thinking :-), it would allow to resubmit quickly if there is a very strong buy in, but not otherwise, whereas 1. simply ads a bumper time without changing the procedure itself, brutal but efficient.. Still both would achieve about the same thing in our context, i.e. motivate proper preparation of items for transition from  "Under Consideration" to "Approved"

Both 3. and 4. I would consider insufficient, as they would undermine the very reason for having the "discarded" or prison section; as you rightly pointed out in the TC discussion.

Anyway, I trust that all pros and cons were sufficiently discussed and rather than lingering and trying to arrive at a consensus, we should decide via a ballot and move on.

Best regards

dF

Dr. David Filip

=======================

LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS

University of Limerick, Ireland

telephone: +353-6120-2781

mobile: +353-86-049-34-68

facsimile: +353-6120-2734

mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 15:19, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

Hi David, all,

> Only the Owner can suggest reconsideration of an
> item in section 3.
> [Alternative additional conditions for reconsideration
> of items in section 3:]
> EITHER
> 1.      Not sooner than 4 months after the item was
> placed in Section 3.
> OR
> 2.      Majority of *all* voting members needed (via kavi to
> all eligible, or also possible if the meeting majority is
> at the same time the majority of all current voting members).
> OR
> 3.      No additional conditions.

A suggestion: How about no conditions at all? Anyone can suggest reconsideration of an item in section 3 and we do a simple ballot on that. Why putting "artificial limitations" (in my opinion) to do things? The bottom line is that the group always end up deciding anyway.

Just my 2 cents.
-yves



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org