dita — archive

[Paul Grosso]

As in the past, I'm assuming (and I think others will assume) that a "no" vote means you object to the proposal on some explanable grounds. I suspect few of us feel comfortable voting no for "no reason". However, I fear that is how the DITA 1.2 process got out of hand. For step 2, you allow for: > "abstain" (do not understand), or "sure, whatever" (not > trying to understand due to lack of interest, but no > objection to moving forward) You do not have "I'm not sure can or care to invest the time to understand this fully, but I don't think your explanation of the use case warrants going any further with this." I think we should allow for such an opinion which counts as a vote against going further with the proposal. For step 3, you suggest: > all voting members present must vote "yes" or "no" to > include the item in 1.3. If a majority votes "yes", the > proposal is included in 1.3.... Again, this doesn't fix the problem we had with 1.2 because it will be very unlikely that any proposal would not pass. Instead, I'd suggest for step 3 that we have "yes", "no", and "abstain for any reason (either because I still don't understand it or I'm still not convinced this is important enough or I just think we've got enough already in this release of DITA)", and that more than 50% of those present must vote "yes" for it to be included. paul >