On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Miller,Eric wrote:
> - The DCMI Point, Box and Agent encoding schemes have been removed... they
> have been identified by several people as not being endorsed by the various
> working groups (date and coverage). Further investigation (via the WG
> documents) confirmed this. We're there other deliverables from these groups
> that the editors missed that support these encoding schemes?
In the first voting round, DCBOX got 14 yes votes, 2 no, and 2
abstentions. DCPOINT got 13 yes, 2 no, and 3 abstentions -- and at
least one of those abstentions (mine) was on the grounds that there was
no documentation, which has since been rectified.
It is not clear to me whether the objections have more to do with
technical aspects, or process, or both. If DCBOX and DCPOINT now were
to be taken off this ballot -- which I would have to support in the
name of being conservative in our recommendations, because these things
will be harder to fix once they are stamped as "recommended" -- I would
like to see a clear plan to resubmit them for WG approval, then to put
them as soon as possible onto a special ballot.
If we do this, we should recognize that the UC sent the signal to Simon
that his proposals generally met with approval and acknowledge the
considerable effort he made to respond so quickly with documentation.
Tom
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
GMD Library
Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|