On 7/5/09 6:16 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Additionally, you mentioned Rob's proposal. I believe that if his
proposal was done in isolation and was, in fact, the only update to
your draft then the resulting draft would feel a bit inconsistent.
However, I sense that it is a part of a larger intent to revisit the
notion of author conformance requirements. If so, it would be
premature to hold a vote at this time.
Hi Sam,
That is the case. I agree that a line-item vote would be premature at
this time. The issue is not blocking technical progress, and there are
many other issues to discuss. Most of the recent traffic on the list
seems to concern pressing for a vote and voting mechanics, which seems
like a waste of time.
In all cases, I believe that the people who are working on this
deserve an opportunity to complete their tasks.
thanks,
Rob
