Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
At 06:13 PM 7/25/00 -0600, wpiencia@walter.dsl.frii.net wrote:
><comment type="wandering">
> There's been some real concern stated that with a wide-open
> policy, chaos will ensue, and work may get bogged down.
> (Hey, it's a possibility: don't shoot. ;^)
And one that's materialized--c.f. comp.lang.perl.misc. (Not that I'm
opposing a wide-open policy, as long as the rules as to what behaviour is
unacceptable and what the ramifications of continuing it are)
> Personally, I'm of mixed mind regarding this. Optimally,
> everything is wide open . . . but I do remember the IETF's
> HTML 2.0 working group. It got bogged down with a bunch of
> irreconcilable (and sometimes pedantic) positions on issues
> (tables and math, if you're wondering) that ultimately had to
> be jettisoned from the spec for it to go forward. I'm
> thinking that the closed-group model is an attempt to
> forestall this, much as W3 continued the HTML work.
I was under the impression that the WG leads would have primary yea/nay
authority, with the group leads over them, and Larry at the top, with that
authority exercised only when necessary (either a group is totally bogged
down, or a decision would create major havoc in other areas, or something
else of the sort). Basically folks could step in if they really, *really*
needed to, and would hopefully work to make sure that wasn't necessary.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next