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

ftp://ftp.simplesystems.org/pub/png-group/documents/history/png-proposed-eXIf-chunk-2017-0115.txt

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:50 PM, John Bowler <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> png-mng-misc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

_______________________________________________
png-mng-misc mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc