Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION (continued): PNG Registration Process 20170125

While I understand the motivation for this proposal I see it as adding
bureaucracy without actually fixing anything in the current
dysfunctional approach.

The added bureaucracy is another impediment to external submission of
chunk proposals.

The example formats available do not encourage productive discussion;
they create an illusion of complexity and discourage concise
statements of chunk proposals.

The proposal does not address the issue of death-by-a-thousand-edits
which seems to befall all PNG chunk proposals.

What is required is a procedure which limits disruptive modification.
The approval process needs to acknowledge that the proposer of a chunk
owns the definition.  It is not an invitation for invention, grand
standing, or hijacking; things which, unfortunately, are a regular
feature of ISO operations and inevitably occur unless discouraged
forcefully.

I therefore suggest an I hope non-disruptive modification, to wit:

1) A proposal is submitted in a form of the proposers choice to the
png-mng-misc discussion list.
2) At any point thereafter the proposer may submit a formal call for discussion.
3) At a point between 14 and 28 days after a formal call for
discussion a proposer may issue a call for votes.
4) The vote shall be on the proposal exactly as submitted for the call
for discussion; no changes, however minor, are permitted.
5) Voting shall be as described in the current proposal.
6) If approved the proposal may be edited in order to conform to ISO
requirements (e.g. colour rather than color, section numbering),
however no other edits shall be made.

This is an "it is what it is" approach; if you don't like how color is
spelled, or maybe spelt, or you object to the behaviour of the
proposer you are free to vote no, or, indeed, yes.  Likewise if you
thing the format of the document will totally mess up the existing PNG
extensions document; that is a perfectly valid viewpoint which can be
expressed, validly, within the discussion period.

The hard rule on changes is there for a reason; the proposal cannot be
derailed by minor, arguably editorial, changes because the proposer,
while may be feeling there is some validity to them, can simply reject
them.  The proposer is held to the same set of rules as the
disruptive; pick your battle.

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