Re: Sigh -- More procedure

[Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

I'm sorry Kent. In my rush to get things out to X3J13 and to respond to
the rather massive number of minor typos and corrections and remarks
that I recieved, I've been a bit sloppy about recording which sections
got edited in response to which remarks. One problem is that, as you say
yourself, people had been hesitating to say anything about proposals now
open up (at the last minute) with lots of comments on them; in many
cases, they are relevant and useful comments, and the only reasonable
thing to do is to address the comments in the proposal. 


I will say that I don't (and didn't) intend to release documents to
X3J13 without there being some opportunity for objections by this
committee. 

The "the cleanup committee endorses this ..." statements are of course
provisional. However, if we want to say that we endorse something by
consensus then I need to write it in the proposal itself. If the
proposal says "FOO and JOE like this proposal." and then we all agree,
and I edit it to say "we all agree", then, by your own rules, I'd have
to send it out again for yet another ballot since the wording changed.)

I think we have a little more flexibility about wording than was
available CLtL because the wording of these proposals are in fact
subject to the interpretation of the committee that actually writes the
standards document. That is, we're specifying intent and not exact
wording. 

I will be more careful identifying the changes to proposals, and my use
of "Ready for release". (I don't expect to send out any documents to
CL-CLEANUP with the annotation "Ready for release" because, if you've
already seen it and voted on it, then I don't need to send it out again,
do I?)

I'm finally done going through all of the ballots and suggestions and
what have you. I will mail out a new status report shortly, and also
some revised versions of some of the proposals.