Excellent audit trail, Lloyd. Very nice job.
I guess what was missing all along was that each proposal
advocate (Harry and Tom) should have pressed the chair to
publish the "call for negative opinion" message on the DL,
which of course would include a cut-off date for discussion
(afterwhich the proposal would be automatically accepted if
no such objection is raised on the DL).
Perhaps we can still perform a "final call" for these proposals?
...jay
lpyoung at lexmark.com wrote:
>> Harry and Ira,
>> I do not have a problem putting the new chIPP and Media
> Path alert changes in the Printer MIB but here is the
> statement that is in the Printer MIB for Type 2 enums
> which both of these are:
>> enumeration (2) An initial set of values are defined
> in the Printer MIB specification. Additional enumerated
> values are registered after review by this working group.
> The initial versions of the MIB will contain the values
> registered so far. After the MIB is approved, additional
> values will be registered through IANA after approval
> by this working group.
>> Review and approval by the working group consists more
> than someone identifying a problem. It requires others
> from the working group to indicate on the mailing list
> that they have reviewed and approved the additions. The
> review and approval process does not need to be conducted
> in a face to face meeting, it can be conducted on the mailing
> list. But changes do require the review and approval of
> the working group before they will be included.
>> As best as I can tell from the PMP mail archives here is the
> mail history for the chIPP and Media Path alert changes:
>> chIPP Channel addition
>> - Tom Hastings submitted original proposal 5/11
> - Tom Hastings submitted revised proposal 5/20
> - David Kellerman noted his review and approval, also had
> questions 5/27
> - Ira answered David's questions and noted potential changes
> and/or rewrite to revised proposal 5/27
>> Media path alert addition
>> - Harry submitted original proposal 6/3
> - Harry submitted revised proposal 6/3
>> There has not been any other mail saying that anyone else has
> reviewed or approves these changes.
>> Lloyd