Bringing VOEvent v2.0 home to roost

[Rob Seaman]

Hi Matthew,

>> In the absence of rapid convergence, the chair suggests we leave the v1.11 language in place and hold the issue over for v2.1.
> 
> I'm sorry but I disagree with this decision. There is nothing particularly new in dereferencable URIs being used for typing and it's not exactly rocket science. In practice, a small subset will almost certainly be in common usage and you can hardcode these if you want but an enumerated list is a real headache and not extensible without some form of versioning.

It wasn't a decision, it was a suggestion.  You are also apparently objecting to Mike's suggestions.  Convince Mike - or vice versa.  If neither of you convince the other then perhaps other voices will speak up on this issue.  If a deadlock persists "in the absence of rapid convergence", then the most robust path is to remain with the v1.11 wording that has already survived the RFC process.

Which is to say that the chair doesn't actually have a horse in this race.

> I'm also somewhat concerned that this discussion is happening with a specification that has been promoted to PR. This does rather suggest that it is not mature enough.

No, it suggests that you only get traction on an issue when folks are paying attention - for instance during an RFC period or with an InterOp looming.  Maturity occurs when a standard meets the real world.  This doesn't occur until it emerges from the cocoon of the WG.

Other PR's have demonstrated similar behavior.  I think the key transition is at the end of RFC, not two weeks before it begins.  Personally I think it's great to have this give and take on an issue.  Like Mike says, this discussion should be regarded "in light of what should be a small change to the PR doc".

The VOEvent WG has had robustly entertaining discussions since day one:

	<a href="http://www.aish.com/sp/lal/92035714.html"> Mazel Tov! </a>

Rob