Re: [idn] SUMMARY: reordering strawpoll

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

> The chair's stated purpose in asking for comments was to try to get
> additional feedback on the interpretation of the results of the poll. Do
> you think this is improper? How do you think the wg should move
> procedurally to resolve this issue? James obviously feels that he
> shouldn't just declare re-ordering to be dead by fiat, and yet it
> is clearly outnumbered.

I think the conduct of the chairs (in this instance) is the consequence
of holding a snap poll, without thinking through the set of outcomes.
What in heaven's name made a "poll" prior to a second reading of the draft
the best idea available?

The rough consensus (and the occasionally overlooked working code) process
can't resolve every division.

I've outlined how the editors of the affected drafts can proceed.

> Obviously ACE versioning would allow re-ordering as an optional feature. But
> this doesn't really satisfy the people who objected on the basis of complexity,
> does it?

Nope.

...
> Sorry, I can't understand this. Can't you say things more simply?

If yes, (versioning) then the working docs delta, for example, a scope rule
may be required, this was [35] in the requirements draft, versions 4, and
[30] in versions 5 and 6, so that scopes may be associated with versions.

If no, then the working docs divide into parallel texts, with "this assumes
reording" and "this assumes no reordering" disclaimers, and each set of
documents proceeds.

Eric