On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> "To proposals that are accepted it assigns a specific status."
>
> Is there any reason not to be more specific? In the Usage Board
> process document draft we used the word "accepted" when what was
> meant was that the decision of the Board was that a proposal became
> a DCMI Recommendation with a designated status of either X-Domain
> or Domain-Specific. An alternative decision (depending on the
> proposal) would be a DCMI Recommendation that something become
> Obsolete. Could the sentence here perhaps be more specific?
I see your point but my recollection, supported by point #3a in Beth's
notes, is that we decided to leave out reference to specific statuses
here and let the Process document define what these are.
> I know that the process document still has this notion of
> "non-acceptance" or "non-recommendation" which means nothing
> more than that a proposal isn't going to become a DCMI Recommendation.
> I'd really like to have us consider dropping this notion as a specific
> status
> --drop it both literally and from the UB process document leaving us
> with a process in which the UB either brings a proposal forward as a
> Recommendation (X-Domain, Domain-Specific, Obsolete) or it does
> not (with explanation of why not).
I agree. Are you referring to the notion of "non-conforming"? I thought
we had dropped that already. What part of the Process document are you
referring to?
BTW, my preference would be for "Cross-Domain" as opposed to "X-Domain"
(which to me vaguely suggests "X-files" or "extension domain").
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
|