[xslt-conformance] Need your opinion (if any) about publicavailability of submitted tests, pre-review

[david_marston@us.ibm.com]

In today's meeting, the question arose:
Should the public at large be able to see the test cases submitted to
OASIS before they're reviewed? (i.e., the raw submission)

There are three ways we could resolve this that come to mind right
away (other ideas welcome):
A. Yes, make it part of the conditions (just like the release for
   OASIS to disseminate) that submissions will go public as soon as
   someone on the Committee finds them in the upload area.
B. Each submitter must specify whether they want their submission
   public right away (as above) or only at publication time (below).
C. No, we only publish a combined suite after review and packaging.
If you don't respond to this message, we will assume that (A) is
satisfactory. Further assume that under scenario (A), there will be
prominent labels that tests are unreviewed and might not actually
be proper conformance tests.

Some arguments advanced so far:
FOR (A): Helps other submitters and people interested in XSLT
 testing to envision what this Committee is doing. May even spark
 discussion about correct XSLT behavior. Reassures interested
 parties that we have tests.
AGAINST (A): People will download unreviewed tests and use them as
 if they were sanctioned tests. They may be less interested in
 supporting the work of the Committee in areas other than just
 gathering test cases.
FOR (B): Submitters can be persuaded by either set of arguments
 and choose accordingly.
AGAINST (B): More hassle for us to keep submissions separated
 by each submitter's requested exposure. All accepted tests will be
 public eventually, so why give this illusion of control?
FOR (C): Eliminates confusion about our value-add. (People can
 always send a test to xsl-list to illustrate a point about
 conformance.) If people try the tests and respond in any way
 other than submitting more, we need to amend the process to
 define how we counter-respond.
AGAINST (C): We might miss some valuable comments from sideline
 observers who look at the tests.

Use the above or other arguments in explining your position.
Please respond to the list.
.................David Marston