Sam Ruby wrote:
Antone Roundy wrote:
+1.
...oh, and the wording I just suggested for part of PaceTextShouldBeProvided would depend on this also being accepted.
With deep regret, I'm going to express my -1 on PaceOptionalSummary.
Not because I object to the text expressed in the proposal section.
In fact, I clearly do not as I lifted large sections of it to be placed into PaceTextShouldBeProvided.
No, it is because the author of PaceOptionalSummary has made it clear
that he interprets the two paces to be incompatible, so each and every
+1 for PaceOptionalSummary is a vote against
PaceTextShouldNotBeProvided.
I don't think the last clause follows.
Despite this, I have attempted to see if there was some common ground to
be found. I drafted up a Pace, and offered a few suggestions. It has
since become clear to me that PaceOptionalSummary is being pursued in a winner take all manner.
As such, I see no other path than to offer my -1 on the Pace. Face down, arms and legs outstretched, in the middle of the road.
Tim asked last week for an explanation as to why the two paces conflict. I provided this:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14863.html
I see PaceTextShouldBeProvided as contradictory to PaceOptionalSummary. It calls out title-only feeds as unfortunate and I assume from that, we are meant to infer a bad practice. You came back to me and pointed out that the rationale is not the spec text; I agreed and said the rationale is flawed. That's where is was left.
I think, more or less, that PaceTextShouldBeProvided only exists because PaceOptionalSummary has not been successfully dismissed. I have no idea why title-only feeds are unfortunate, are an interoperability problem, or an accessibility problem. In fact I felt we had put the accessibility issue to bed weeks ago, but it popped up again in the PaceTextShouldBeProvided's rationale.
One thing I would like those who advocate PaceOptionalSummary to the exclusion of all other Paces on the subject to consider... what happens if the chairs determine that consensus can't be found on either of these paces? Look at the current wording of draft-08. Is that what you really want?
If the chairs count it up, I think they could find consensus. I think they could have done that a fortnight ago. Or last week. I agree with Robert's paraphrasing, that we are drowning in +1s. And I fail to understand why this has been dragged out so long. There are a few strongly voiced objections, but is that sufficient reason to grind this one out?
We can do better.
I started out 0 and moved to +1 based on the arguments I saw presented for and against PaceOptionalSummary and my own thinking. I'm -1 on PaceTextShouldBeProvided, and have explained why. I honestly don't know how I can do any better on this.
cheers Bill
