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

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Hi David,

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

Yes, I would appreciate, thanks.


> 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.

Well... that is my underlying reason :)

I see the no fundamental difference between "discarded" and "under consideration". They're just convenient labels to sort things out a bit more. One should be able to take a feature from either sections to "approved" with the ease.

The bottom line is that all that is relatively un-important (to me). Getting those features into the specification is where I would rather spend time, not in the "prison" section :)

Don't take me wrong: I have nothing against organizing things, having priorities, processes, procedures, etc.
But we are now after the second XLIFF symposium, and a) we still have no 2.0 draft started, b) most of the features listed in our tracking pages have been there long before the first symposium.
We shouldn't be surprised there are efforts like IN! that try to move forward: we are not moving fast enough.

And please, understand that I'm really not criticizing anyone in particular: I'm "part of the problem" like anyone in the TC, as Bryan remind us often :)

We probably just need to spend more time in XLIFF work between calls to make faster progress.


> 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.

+1 to that :)


Cheers,
-yves