Subject: On posting new PaceDateSomeName proposals

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:18:43 -0700

One of the things that has plagued this WG is proposals from 
individuals that get little support from others WG folks. That is not 
to say that such proposals are bad, just that the proposers often 
spend a lot of mailing list traffic soliciting support for their 
proposals, and that soliciting is difficult to distinguish from 
disagreement about other related proposals.

In this round of date proposals, it would be really nice if each pace 
*already had* three active proponents who have bought into the 
semantics. That will reduce the WG traffic and probably greatly 
reduce the confusion on the list.

Yes, this means off-list discussions. No, that doesn't mean "cabal". 
It means saving time and reading effort for the WG.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:49:11 -0600

> disagreement about other related proposals.
This brings some similar issues to mind:

* Silence is difficult to distinguish from agreement ("I agree, but I 
don't have anything to add")
* Silence is difficult to distinguish from indifference
* Silence is difficult to distinguish from utter disdain ("This tripe 
isn't even worth commenting on")

Most of the time, it's nice not having every person on the list sending 
a "+1" or "-1" email in response to every idea, but at other times, 
especially in situations like this, a few more expressions of agreement 
or disagreement would probably be helpful.  We've been around and 
around on this issue, and we're probably all getting pretty sick of it, 
so I can understand not feeling inclined to speak up one way or the 
other, but unfortunately, we're going to need more than just a handful 
of people to participate if we're going to lay this issue to rest.

So, let me practice what I preach.  I'm aware of 3 proposals posted 
since the last reset of the conversation, and my opinions on them:

PaceDateElement: +0.2
PaceDateUpdated: +1
PaceDateSubjective: +1

PaceDateElement just seems a little too vague about what one can expect 
to find in atom:date.  PaceDateUpdated is very similar, only more 
specific about what the data means.  atom:updated is thus clearly 
distinguishable from any dates from dcterms that a publisher may wish 
to use in their feed.

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:13:55 -0600

On Thursday, August 19, 2004, at 01:49  PM, Antone Roundy wrote:
> Most of the time, it's nice not having every person on the list 
> sending a "+1" or "-1" email in response to every idea, but at other 
> times, especially in situations like this, a few more expressions of 
> agreement or disagreement would probably be helpful.
...
> since the last reset of the conversation, and my opinions on them:
BTW, this message was not even remotely intended as a suggestion that 
we take a vote or a poll or anything, though having received a comment 
about it off list, I can see how it looks like one.  It's just that I 
think we're all getting a little jaded by the length of this discussion 
and feeling less inclined to speak up about what we think of particular 
ideas.  Perhaps the "three person" rule--getting support off list 
before posting proposals on difficult topics like this--is a better way 
to gauge opinion without making everyone even more jaded.

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:31:48 +0200

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:18:43 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>  
wrote:

> One of the things that has plagued this WG is proposals from individuals  
> that get little support from others WG folks. That is not to say that  
> such proposals are bad, just that the proposers often spend a lot of  
> mailing list traffic soliciting support for their proposals, and that  
> soliciting is difficult to distinguish from disagreement about other  
> related proposals.

I'd just like to note that I did this exact thing with PaceDates, which  
ended up in PaceDateAsbjornUlsberg and PaceDateAsbjornUlsberg2. Those  
paces had support from others than myself, but I'm not sure why the others  
didn't say so on the list.

> semantics. That will reduce the WG traffic and probably greatly reduce  
> the confusion on the list.

How should these proponents be named? In the pace? If so, could that be  
added to the template, so it's not forgotten by the pace creators?

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:49:23 -0700

At 11:31 PM +0200 8/19/04, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
>How should these proponents be named? In the pace?

Sure.

>  If so, could that be added to the template, so it's not forgotten 
>by the pace creators?

We don't need to be that structured. Antone had a separate section in 
his first two for supporters; others might just put their names 
somewhere near the top.

This isn't a beauty contest, just a way to be sure that the proposals 
already have enough support to warrant attention. If none of the 
paces get three people supporting them, Tim and I will have to figure 
out some other micromanagement scheme to bug you with.

--Paul Hoffman, Director