Re: Comments regarding draft-freed-mime-p4-04.txt

[Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>]

On Nov 2, 2003, at 7:26 AM, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
> > No new draft appeared because we were waiting for a response from the
> > IESG, not because a choice had been made.
>
> And a response was given, as I have indicated above.

That response was made to the W3C, not the authors of the draft. 
Although I'd agree that someone at the W3C *should* have passed that 
information on, it doesn't follow that the IESG was released from the 
reasonable expectation that it communicate its decision to them.


> > However, this is just a declaration of facts, not a change in status 
> > of
> > the registration.
>
> Oh please. It was clear from this note that there was a problem and it
> was clear what the problem was.

While that's clear to you from your position on the IESG, it's not to 
me on the outside. Formality in processes is useful to avoid just this 
kind of misunderstanding.

I could understand and accept these communication problems if they were 
considered a one-time fluke, but it appears that you consider them 
acceptable, which I find troubling. Is that really the case?

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems