[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments regarding draft-freed-mime-p4-04.txt
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.
The discussion that led to the approach used in this document happened on a W3C
call. And I believe the request for futher consideration also came from the
same source.
Given that this is the case I think it was reasonable to believe that feedback
along this channel was what was appropriate.
>> 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?
Then ask yourself these questions: How many revisions to registration
procedures have been the result of W3C-IETF coordination work but then were
subsequently rejected by the IESG? And how many documents have been produced
during the brief period when it was believed the original approach was viable?
Once you have answered these questions it should be easy for you to determine
whether or not this situation was a fluke or something that happens all the
time.
Ned