Sigfrid Lundberg said:
>> One of my problems with the DCMI is that my memory is very much better
>> than most people's I know. Whenever an agreement has been reached, I take
>> for granted that this agreement is valid until we _explicitely_ agreed
>> something else in the issue, whereas most you produce "new" analyses of
>> old problems without ever looking back to what we did three years ago.
Tom Baker said:
>Sigge, I appreciate your frustration. However, from a process point of
>view, documents such as [1] and [2], which date largely from 1997 and
>1998, have remained Working Drafts of working groups and were never
>shepherded through to Proposed or Recommended status.
Just could not help jumping in, "from a process point of view" this is not
the fault of WGs not "shepherding" their work through. A good reason WG
drafts never get beyond working draft status is that there is no official
procedure for doing so. Two years ago Warwick Cathro led a small working
group that drafted a document of procedures that included how to go up the
ladder from one status to another, but that turned out to be one of many WG
drafts that never got beyond working draft status. (Is there something
circular here?) So the only way to get to a recommendation is by some
special dispensation and process from the DC directorate, as we're doing
with the usage committee and qualifiers now.
p
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|