[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Paul W. Abrahams" <abrahams@valinet.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:27:36 -0400
Ann Navarro wrote:
> At 08:44 AM 10/19/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
> >We can't do it *all* on open lists. All that people
> >such as Simon St Laurent have asked for is the
> >technical reasoning behind decisions.
>
> Except that this ignores (or forgets) that all decisions aren't necessarily
> based on the best technical reasoning. It may have been politics,
> stonewalling, or finally caving in to some sort of consensus with a
> minority opinion. Rare are issues that are unanimous.
>
> Would those who want reasons behind decisions accept "the best solution the
> group could come to consensus on"? I can only see follow-up as to what the
> other proposals were and why or why not something was/wasn't accepted, and
> that's where you get into "Well, Foo, Inc's rep refused this", etc.
Reminds me of my experience on the ANSI PL/I Standards Committee a long time
ago. They actually had a reasonable approach to this issue. Changes to
documents were done through proposals, and proposals had to offer
justifications. The proposals were public, but the arguments pro and con were
not. However, when the committee rejected a proposal it wrote down its
reasons (proposals could be originated either internally or externally).
While not perfect, that procedure at least produced technical explanations
when they existed.
Paul Abrahams
|
