At the risk of looking like I'm simply taking Harry's side since he and I
work together, I'm going to comment nonetheless.
This process *does* seem a bit arbitrary to me. I could probably go back
through (well, maybe not me, but I'm sure Tom could ;-) any document the
PWG has produced looking for things that "don't look right". Then I could
bring them up, and possibly get significant support in their
"not-looking-right-ness". However, in theory, whatever it is I'm bringing
up has already been discussed and decided upon in the past, by a number of
people who had their heads clearly focused on the task at hand, unlike now,
where probably fewer people are paying attention, and even those people
might not have really had their minds focused on the subject for months
(years?).
I think if a "problem" is discovered in a document, it should be brought
up, as Tom did. However, even if only one person pipes up to explain why
it is not a problem (it's a feature! :-), I would think the conversation
should end there--a conscious decision was made on the subject and opening
up documents to continual re-editing would seem to be a bad precedent.
If there is real consensus that this redirect mechanism is a "problem",
sure, let's consider getting rid of it. But if the consensus is simply
that we're not sure whether anyone is going to use it, I believe we must
have more useful things to do with our time than debate this.
Just my 2 cents worth...
Dennis Carney
IBM Printing Systems