From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 16:09:58 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> So I think the rough consensus is now established in principle, although
> the wording may yet change.
Wrong; there remain substantive objections from several parties. The objections
date from draft 12, which has the objectionable wording, and that was after
one of the co-chairs had ruled that "Re:" was not part of the defined syntax
and that the only possible reason to include it would be if some protocol
issue were applicable. After discussion, not one example of a protocol issue
was given. And all of that happened before draft 12 was published.
The draft 12 text inserted by the Document Editor contrary to what had been
discussed in the WG, subsequent false claims by the Document Editor that
negligibly different text is a "compromise", and now claims by the Document
Editor of consensus when there are outstanding substantive objections all
appear to be a transparent effort on the part of the current Document Editor
to insert text corresponding to his personal opinion into the draft after he
failed to provide justification for that text through the WG discussions in
mid 2003.
We are now nearly a year behind schedule due in large part to those antics,
with no clear plan or timetable to reach the goals set in March of 2003.
We still do not have drafts -- even in rough form -- of the two Standards
Track documents that the WG is supposed to be working on.
At minimum, the Chair should have a discussion with the Document Editor
with resolution of the issues described above as a goal.
> My intention now is to publish the draft as it now stands, and then to
> explore wordings to deal with these issues in USEAGE. After that, we can
> return to the Usefor wording.
>
> I am away for the next 4 days, and would expect to publish the draft when
> I get back (unless there are some problems arising from my latest
> Injection-Date changes).
There are indeed problems, among them:
o the bulk of the text has no place in the USEFOR (document #1) draft, some
may be appropriate for the USEPRO (document #2) draft -- as yet we have
no such draft document to discuss
o at least one syntax issue was introduced by the Document Editor without
WG discussion. Objections have been raised to that, yet the offending
issue has not been redressed
o WG members have asked for a WG working document containing the full text
as it stands so that the proposed changes can be reviewed in context; the
Document Editor has refused to comply with those requests