But as long as we are voting positive, I vote "yes" on both proposals.
--Matt
Angelo.Caruso@usa.xerox.com on 07/07/99 09:04:52 AM
To: jkm%underscore.com@interlock.lexmark.com, Lloyd Young@LEXMARK
cc: pmp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Matt King/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: RE: PMP> Final call on Printer MIB changes
I agree with Jay on the positive versus negative voting issue. However, I
would suggest that any proposed addition must receive at least one vote of
support (a "second", if you will), and then the "negative response" voting
scheme should work fine.
I also vote "yes" on both of the current proposals. I agree that it would be
embarrassing to not add an IPP enum to the MIB and I also think that Harry's
proposal is harmless to most and useful to some.
Thanks,
Angelo
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Martin [mailto:jkm@underscore.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 6:48 PM
To: lpyoung@lexmark.com
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: PMP> Final call on Printer MIB changes
Lloyd,
With all due respect, you are suggesting a process exactly OPPOSITE
of what I described in my recent messages. You are proposing that
people send you POSITIVE votes, rather than NEGATIVE votes (ie,
comments in opposition to the given proposal).
This process has NOT worked (nay, NEVER WORKED) in the past.
We would be fools to ignore our multi-year history and think
(for whatever reason( it will work now.
All:
I believe the entire PWG should consider how such critical
processes such as "Last Call" (or whatever you call it) are
performed.
No matter whether "positive" or "negative" voting is used,
all such comments should be PUBLIC and not private to the
chairperson, IMHO. Does others agree or disagree with this
statement?
Would others on the DL please state their views on which kind
of voting process you think would be suitable for the PWG?
...jay