Re: CFV: "License" keyword 20040417

Glenn wrote:

> You can vote...if you have posted a message to png-list or
> png-implement at least 180 days prior...

Cosmin replied:

> png-list OR png-implement OR mng-list.

You're both just making this up.  :)

The voting procedure was established by consensus in 1996-Sep:

    From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson ARL-WMRD-TED-TIB <[email protected]>
    To: PNG List <[email protected]>
    Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 9:53:08 EDT
    Message-ID: <[email protected]>

    ...

    I believe we do have consensus, though, on the major parts of the concept:

        -  180 days since first submission for voter eligibility
           [in mpng-list I will suggest a shorter time like 90 days
           because the list hasn't been around so long]
        -  2-week discussion period
        -  2-week voting period
        -  votes submitted publicly to png-list
        -  [at least] 10 votes to approve
        -  2:1 YES:NO required to approve
        -  rejected chunks not to be re-voted unless external conditions
           change, the proposal changes,  or sufficent time [180 days?]
           has elapsed.

    The rest is formality and perhaps unnecessary.  I have not even decided
    to vote YES on the process because I think the formality may actually
    be destructive; consensus on the above seems to me to be sufficent.

Everyone went along with this, and development of the formal spec
stopped; it was never approved, and is still available at:

ftp://swrinde.nde.swri.edu/pub/png-group/documents/
png-registration-19960926.html

In 1996-Oct a principle was established of using the unapproved formal
spec to clarify the informal consensus summary.  I wrote:

    >     -  [at least] 10 votes to approve
    As I recall, that meant 10 YES votes.  10 ABSTAIN votes doesn't cut it,
    even though the 2:1 YES:NO ratio is satisfied.  :)

And Glenn replied:

    Right.  In case of doubt, look at the formal (unapproved) PNG chunk
    registration document.

That's perfectly sensible, because Glenn wrote both the summary and
the formal document, and because the document was the center of the
discussion from which the consensus arose.

The upshot is that the points listed in the summary, as clarified by
the document, were agreed to by consensus (but any additional points
contained in the document were not agreed to).

The YES >= 10 threshold was changed in 1998 to YES - NO >= 5, at which
time the voter eligibility requirements were discussed but not changed.

The summary item "180 days since first submission" is unclear
(submission to what?), so we turn to the document for clarification.
The document explicitly restricts its attention to png-list.  Votes
are cast to png-list, and eligibility is determined by first post to
png-list.  When the document was written, png-announce, png-implement,
and mpng-list all existed, so if they were meant to be included, they
would have been.

The practice of using multiple lists to determine voter eligibility
originated in MNG votes.  Glenn intended from the start to have separate
standards for MNG voting (see the summary above).  Only two PNG votes
have mentioned png-implement: this one about the License keyword, and
the previous one about the meaning of gamma=0 (back in 2001).  I don't
think there has been any consensus about using any list other than
png-list for determining voter eligibility for PNG votes.  I think the
issue slipped by unnoticed in 2001.

If we want to change the voter eligibility criteria for PNG votes, we'll
need to reopen that discussion.

AMC

--
Send the message body "help" to [email protected]