Design issues

[David_Marston@lotus.com]

Stan asked me via email:
>Were we using the full "html" as the extension?
...as opposed to "htm"

Does anyone have any particular reason to favor one or the other?
I'd favor "html" for readability.

We also need to decide certain aspects of the review procedure. In the
draft document, this means filling in Section 4. Also, reviewers may
exercise more judgment than implied by the title of Section 6. Maybe
we can omit some aspects from the published Review Guidelines, but I
think we need to be clear on a couple aspects of workflow:
A. What decisions an individual reviewer can make (accept, reject, ...)
B. What decisions the whole Committee can make, above and beyond what's
   in list (A), like the decision to refer to the W3C. (Section 7.)
C. Does an issue get referred to the whole Committee if the decisions
   of the two reviewers differ in any way, or are there some automatic
   resolutions possible? (Example: if the two reviewers decisions are
   "reject" and "defer", we could say that it's an automatic "defer".)
Cris: are any of the above already stabilized?
.................David Marston