[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Consensus calls
For each of the things on AtomPubIssuesList, we went through all the email we could find, dating back to the arrival of protocol-09. We also make the call on a few other Paces that didn't make it into AtomPubIssuesList, because the WG leaning seemed clear enough. The WG has created a number of new Paces since the last issues-list revision; we are not 100% sure at this time how to handle them, but this consensus call is a necessary first step.
There were a *lot* of messages here, so as always, it's possible that we misread the consensus. Also, some may want to suggest that one or more of the Paces not covered here have obviously achieved or failed to achieve consensus and can be called now. If so, please speak up (using an as-specific-as-possible subject line).
PaceAppCategories: This is the hardest to call. There are a ton of positive and neutral comments, but three -1's. We admit to prejudice in that the +1's and +0's include a lot of our implementors. We think that one of the three -1's, from Andreas Sewe, could be turned around if the bug he reported in http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/ mail-archive/msg05780.html could either be fixed, or Andreas convinced that it's not really a bug. Finally, we didn't see any of the opponents arguing that this would be damaging, but this Paces's supporters are pretty excited about it, think its lack will be a big hole in APP. So...
ACCEPTED. The WG is asked to comment on Andreas' bug report and either refute it or suggest fixes. 

PaceAppModified: REJECTED.  One +1, many -1's

PaceAppModified2: ACCEPTED.  Lots of support, only one objection.
PaceAppUpdated: REJECTED. Some friendliness, but only one +1; a few neutrals and a lot of -1's.
PaceCategoryLink: REJECTED. Not a single +1, some neutral, lots of negatives.
PaceExtendIntrospection: ACCEPTED. One -1, but many many supporters (more than any other Pace I think).
PaceNoChangeID: REJECTED. Unusually, significant numbers of both +1 and -1, but the Nays have it by quite a bit.
PaceOneAppNamespaceOnly: ACCEPTED. Up there with ExtendIntrospection for having mobs of supporters. 

PaceRemoveTitleHeader2: ACCEPTED.  Another popular Pace, one lonely -1.
PaceRequireContentType: This is another tough call. The breakdown of opinion is a bit like PaceAppCategories, but the balance in favor of supporters is much weaker. Also, the supporters aren't arguing that leaving this out will leave a critical hole in APP. So... 

   REJECTED.  But not by much.
PaceSlugHeader4: ACCEPTED. Two -1's, but a lot of support and nobody's saying doing it will be a calamity.
PaceTitleSafety: REJECTED. Lots of support, but most of it was as a fallback if PaceRemoveTitleHeader2 failed. 

PaceUnifiedEntryEditing: REJECTED. Crushed like a bug by waves of -1's
PaceRemoveMustOrderCollectionsByUpdated: REJECTED. Thank goodness we don't do things by voting, because this would have been a tie.
PaceUseElementsForAppCollectionTitles: Another tough one. Discussion was intense, and very late in the day PaceUseElementsForAppCollectionTitles2 arrived, and got some +1's. So...
REJECTED, but... have a look at ...Titles2. Would this remove the objections of Snell, Story, and Marvin without losing any supporters of the original? Wouldn't take much.
PaceOrderCollectionsByAppModified: REJECTED. One for, one against, not good enough.
PaceOrderCollectionsBodyToPostRequests: REJECTED. One for, one against, not good enough. 

PaceURINomenclature: REJECTED, and
PaceOnlyMemberURIs: ACCEPTED. Based in particular on discussion among the implementors who have their hands real dirty with this stuff.
PaceNoServiceDocument: REJECTED: Sorry; there screen-full after screen-full of messages, and eventually it became apparent that yes, you *could* probably get along without a specialized Service doc, but the idea of removing it doesn't have anything like rough-consensus support.
PaceSecurityConsiderations, PaceAuthenticationAndSecurity: There are enough positives and negatives on both that they will remain in play. The chair has asked the two authors to make any changes they want by this Friday Sep 1st and the chairs will start a separate thread at that time.