VOUnits: _another_ version, based on implementation feedback

[Francoise Genova]

Hi all,

The fact that the debate was moderate during the RFC and before and has 
been hot only during the TCG reviews, is certainly a problem since the 
authors tried many times to get comments before. The problem here is not 
the procedure. And standards must be allowed to go to REC. With my 
'standards and processes' hat I strongly suggest to conclude the debate 
now. Then the WG and TCG leads should discuss together to decide what to 
do with the suggested change (include it or not, proceed towards Exec 
review or not).

Francoise

Le 06/11/2013 09:59, Matthew Graham a écrit :
> Hi Markus,
>
> If the document is really in good shape then another cycle through review should be quick and painless. The process exists for a reason, though, and if it has changed substantially from what was reviewed when it was promoted to PR then it must have another review.
>
> 	Cheers,
>
> 	Matthew
>
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 12:23 AM, Markus Demleitner wrote:
>
>> Dear List,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:31:28AM +0100, GENOVA Francoise (OBS) wrote:
>>> I agree completely with Pat. We have established procedures for
>>> acceptance of standards and at this stage it is too late to bring
>>> comments except if there is something so critical that we have to
>>> go one or two steps backwards in the procedure and delay acceptance
>>> again and again. I did not have the impression that this was the
>>> case with these comments.
>> You're certainly right in principle.  In the case of VOUnits,
>> however, debate was moderate during the WD phase.  Then, during TCG
>> review, debate picked up.  This lead to a fairly intensive
>> re-structuring of the document, and more importantly, a few
>> wide-ranging changes were introduced, first and foremost the quoted
>> units.
>>
>> To get an idea what the extent of the changes we're talking about
>> here is, try
>>
>> svn co http://volute.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/projects/std-vounits \
>>   && cd std-vounits && svn diff -r 1787 | less
>>
>> (and kudos for that to Norman again).
>>
>> Now, the last debate is mainly about the consequences of the addition
>> of quoted strings.  That debate could not have happened earlier since
>> the feature only came in during TCG review.
>>
>> We *could* follow the book and have Units do another loop through WG
>> review.  I'd much rather be pragmatic here, though, mainly since the
>> document is now in really good shape.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>         Markus
>>