Re: Call for Discussion: PNG Registration Process 20170116
John Bowler <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.graphics.png.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAP7U398hkLb+NWXv_0_WP5yAXVkU4rYibL0nS9EEh8RHWZnY_g@mail.gmail.com> |
> A two-week voting period follows a two-week discussion period. I find that slightly confusing: jb> A two-week discussion period is followed by a two-week voting period. > To formally approve or reject a chunk for registration * * * This > method can also be used to resolve other issues that need to be > decided by the PNG group. Like keywords? Maybe that should be explicit; IRC the only things an external entity might want to register are new chunks and new (text) keywords. > A proposed specification of the chunk must exist in electronic form > in a location on the current png-group discussion list FTP server. Maybe using *either* the list or the server would be better? As the document says relatively short proposals can be posted to the list while long proposals like dSIG need to be copied to a central location. There is also a possibility in the future of "standardization by editor", a process I have observed happening in a formal standard and a well understood technique in large corporations. John Bowler <[email protected]> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot