[PDB Data Ownership-TF] draft "Data Ownership Policy Document"
ccaputo at alt.net
Sat Mar 21 17:16:24 PDT 2020
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
> >> Good. Then we can assume silence is consent from those listed above.
> > I'm not so sure about that and have now directly emailed the draft to
> > people on the task force that we haven't heard from about it, in hopes of
> > getting their feedback on the latest draft. Sometimes list emails just
> > get lost in the depths of people's inboxes.
> My comment was for those who already participated so far, whom you
> called “approvers” in your initial mail.
I am using an "approvers" list to specifically avoid the
> Either way, I would in fact feel more comfortable if all support or
> objections are sent to this list, so everyone can see them, for
> transparency reasons.
I too encourage all to share their support or objections to the list, but
if someone expresses something privately, that puts me in a tough
position, given the norms of not sharing private email. The purpose of
the adding of initials to the drafts is that it makes clear if support has
been expressed (even if privately) for a specific draft, while also
enabling the person to publicly rebut any mistaken inclusion of their
> >> Otherwise they can speak up until 29 March as well as others.
> > I recommend this not be rushed.
> > How about a review period of 1 week since each last change, repeatable,
> > with a last call week only happening after a review week with no changes?
> If the changes are not conflicting with each other I do not think we
> need linear processing of calling for multiple Review Phases after each
> change request.
I mean that the 1 week clock resets after the most recent change. Yes,
multiple changes can happen concurrently, with the clock starting after
the last change.
This is an idea in hopes of progress, avoiding the pressure of a premature
Last Call while the document is still alive.
> We should be able to resolve them altogether for a coherent final document.
> If change requests are conflicting and people cannot agree, then we have another problem and that needs to be resolved with a discussion first.
> I am fine though having 29 March set as the new Review Phase, after which we can set a week of Last Call, if that works for you.
It doesn't work for me. :-) I don't want a Last Call to happen unless
there has been a 1 week opportunity for any needed revisions to be
considered. Thus we might be ready for Last Call even earlier, but I
don't want to say that it must start on the 29th, if it doesn't make sense
to do so come the 29th.
> > And how about, no changes from this point onward unless there are at least
> > 4 supporters of a given change?
> If someone has an objection to a new change, they need to speak up within the given period.
> Otherwise what is the point of setting these dates?
To help wind this down, I am proposing that new changes require the
support of 4 people before getting into a draft, and that the 1 week
Review Phase clock starts again if that happens.
If anyone objects, and they can find 3 or more people on the Task Force to
agree with their objection, they can submit a further revision to resolve
And this process can continue as a path to consensus, since people tend to
prefer to work toward agreement rather than a stalemate.
There is current discussion about a change to the most recent draft. My
intent it to help facilitate that discussion toward consensus.
More information about the DataOwnership-TF