Subject: Re: [rrg] Analysis of name-based sockets (with attachment)

From: Javier Ubillos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:28:33 +0100

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:00 -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I could not find the actual critique in this message.  I found a 
> "signature.asc", but no other attachments, and the message body is as
shown.
> Yours,
> Joel

That's because I forgot to attach the file :)

Sorry for that.
Here it is.

// Javier

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:29:56 -0800

> That's because I forgot to attach the file :)

Received and incorporated.

Tony

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:08:16 +1100

Hi Tony,

You wrote that you "Received and incorporated."  Javier Ubillos'
critique of Name Based Sockets.

I wrote 33 hours ago that I planned to contribute to the critique of
Name Based Sockets.  I haven't had a chance to do this.  Javier's
critique has received no input from me, and there could be other
people who want to contribute to the 500 word critique for the final
RRG Report.

I request that you wait until the deadline has passed before
incorporating any such critiques.  Someone could have further
suggestions, or a significantly different view on something.

That said, I don't have any specific disagreement with Javier's critique.

  - Robin

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:13:34 -0800

> That said, I don't have any specific disagreement with Javier's critique.

As stated previously, if there are multiple critiques of a proposal, we 
will simply pick one.  If you two choose to collaborate and revise the 
critique, we will accept it.

Tony

---

From: Javier Ubillos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:18:23 +0100

> critique, we will accept it.

If any one wants to make additions to the document I posted, feel free
to mail me before the deadline (preferably with some margin) and I'll do
my best to incorporate the changes/additions.

// Javier

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:29:17 +1100

Hi Tony and Javier,

Thanks for your replies.

My understanding is that one or more people can write a critique and
post it to the list.  Then other people can suggest improvements,
which the original author(s) may or may not incorporate to the
satisfaction of the second person.

Second and subsequent individuals or groups can contribute
alternative critiques by posting them to the list - and Lixia and
Tony will choose one of them.

I think this would be a good approach.  In that case, I think that
whenever anyone posts a critique to the list, that it should not be
immediately "incorporated".

  - Robin

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:33:40 -0800

> immediately "incorporated".

Hi Robin,

Thank you for your comment.  However, in the interests of getting a 
draft out for subsequent steps promptly and not leaving all of the 
editorial work to a giant unsatisfiable lump at the deadline, we will be 
serializing the work.  We have no objections to adding updated 
critiques, if and when those become available or choosing an alternate 
critique if one is presented.

In other words, "incorporated" is not necessarily a final state.

Regards,
Tony

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:35:31 +1100

Hi Tony,

Thanks for this:

> We have no objections to adding updated critiques, if and when
> those become available or choosing an alternate critique if one is
> presented.
>

 Regards

   - Robin

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:31:45 -0800

> immediately "incorporated".

Robin,

it seems to me that Tony's suggestion is the best, i.e. people who  
want to contribute to the critique of the same proposal collaborate to  
finalize the critique, with the resulting critique that incorporate  
all main points.

if we had to choose one among multiples, it is likely to miss some  
issues raised in the dropped writing.

It is possible that people working on the same critique may not reach  
100% agreement on all the issues, in that case the critique can just  
document such disagreements.

Lixia