<co-chair-mode>
As we see it, there are really only 1.5 issues outstanding. Media
entries is obvious. I had an action item to make PaceMediaEntries
more human-readable; thus, check out http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/
pie/PaceMediaEntries5
There's been a lot of discussion of the iterations of this Pace, and
a lot of it was of the form "sort of OK, but I'm uncomfortable with
XXX". So before we do the last-chance +/- survey, we'd like one
last call for amendments, improvements to the Pace that might move
people from negative to positive.
Second: Categories. As of now, the draft is silent on the subject,
which your co-chairs think is questionable, and we want the WG to do
some more work.
PaceCategoryListing failed to achieve consensus on the grounds of
incompleteness: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceCategoryListing
PaceCategoryListing2 was withdrawn: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/
PaceCategoryListing2
PaceCategoryLink didn't get much commentary: http://intertwingly.net/
wiki/pie/PaceCategoryLink
Or, is the WG OK with explicitly giving up? http://
www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceNoCategoryManagementInCore
There was lots of useful constructive discussion, see the messages
around
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04253.html
We did seem to have some pretty clearly articulated requirements
statements. See
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04150.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04174.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04190.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04269.html
So, it's time for the WG to settle this. Reasonable positions to
support might be:
- give up
- something like PaceCategoryLink
- something else.
Let's hear your views. Note that this is not a consensus call on
categories, but a call for the sentiment of how we should move
forwards on the topic.
</co-chair-mode>
-Tim
