Comment on process

[Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not going to argue the point here any further, but feel something
has to be said.

I am optimistic a compromise on the extensibility/RDF issue can be
reached in the given time frame, but find the imposition of such a
short period a bit extreme. It isn't that there hasn't been
considerable work on RDF-compatibility, that side's potentially
trivial (use RDF/XML!), it's the production of a compromise everyone
is comfortable with.

I doubt anyone reading Tim's recent posts on the subject of
extensibility could come to any conclusion other than that he is
vehemently opposed to any inclusion of anything associated with RDF in
the core specification. I certainly don't mean any personal criticism
on this point, only that, as I have said before, I think it's
important that the project is not only open but seen to be open. I am
sure everything is above board, it's only an unfortunate coincidence,
but setting this cutoff on a point on which one of the chairs has
taken a strong viewpoint doesn't look good. Isn't this the first time
a strict deadline has been imposed for proposals for any set of
features? (Aside of course from the name).

No-one gains anything from overly protracted discussion. But I don't
seen any extraordinary circumstances that might justify the imposition
of cloture. Is there something related to the (still unexplained)
"deadline" mentioned in Tim's recent post?

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com