From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Tue Mar 30 23:05:06 2004 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) id i2UL56Zw076370 for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:05:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i2UL3VE7076350 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:05:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from rich_maine@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:58:32 -0800 Received: from [130.134.31.78] (viruswall.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.64.54]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:03:33 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:05:50 -0800 From: Richard Maine To: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3092) Plans for the next revision Message-Id: <2147483647.1080651950@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200403301314.i2UDEa3b070269@dkuug.dk> References: <40696FDE.1090505@rl.ac.uk> <200403301314.i2UDEa3b070269@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.2 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk --On Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:16 PM +0100 John Reid wrote: > B. This will permit very few significant features, but several > minor enhancements and editorial improvements. My personal estimate would be that "very few" might be more accurately stated as "no". Admittedly it depends on how one defines the term "significant," but I'd feel that a feature that could be adequately polished in the proposed time frame would not count as "significant", at least in terms of the standards work, though I acknowledge that sometimes even very simple features can be significant to users. Even if an individual was monumentally productive and produced full edits for a significant feature in the specified time frame, I'd think that we would want more time than this for contemplation as to whether it really was the best approach. To me, the necessity for such time is inherent in the definition of a significant feature. I am not objecting to the schedule. I agree with all the stated rationales and I think it is about the right time frame for what should come next. I've been trying to argue that we shouldn't be doing significant features for the next standard. I see this schedule as supporting my point. I am just pointing out that, in my opinion, even the "very few" is optimistic for significant features. I've seen a lot of proposals that I don't think we could do even one of in this time frame. I'm also concerned that it is not actually strict enough to say that we will drop proposals that aren't in good enough shape by the end of stage 1. For proposals that aren't going to make the cut, I think we should drop them as soon as that is reasonably evident. Otherwise, we will devote a lot of time to them...time which would be better spent on the proposals that are going to make it and on the interps, which I'm sure will be sorely needed. I see a disconnect between our general plans, as reflected in things like this schedule, and the specific proposals. My personal estimation (which I know some people disagree with) is that the last J3 meeting voted forward enough proposals to make a change that would exceed that of f2003. Although it was clearly intended that there would be further filtering, my opinion is that the necessary filtering is far larger than I think many people envision. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain