[MPEG-OTSPEC] Draft AHG report for your review

[Caleb Maclennan]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 7:41 PM Levantovsky, Vladimir
<Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com> wrote:
> As far as allegations of abuse are concerned, I think it was already established that they are without merit – it did not happen in this AHG.

First "it" is somewhat reductionist, as best I can figure there are
quite a number of allegations, some of them clearly about this that
happened in this AHG.

Secondly, I don't think anything has been "established", only
"asserted". That's a big difference.

> The proposal to extend the functionality of the COLR table is a vivid example of how things can be done

Vivid, maybe, but not all rosy. There has been a concerted effort to
turn it around, but it nearly went off the rails largely because it
disappeared into a black box editorial process along the way.

> Thank you, I agree this is a good suggestion, please see attached the new updated text of the report with the proposed changes.

I see you copied some of my wording but I think you may have missed
the overall point. I was hoping to see discussion on technical issues
on the issue tracker count as official "it happened in the AHG"
discussion. In other words *not* having to CC everything to the
mailing list in order to avoid future accusations of "it didn't
happen". The upshot of my suggestion would be that people have to
subscribe to both the list and add the repository to their watch list
if they expect to stay abreast of OFF technical discussions. The way
you worded it people can ignore the repository and expect to be
appraised of everything via the mailing list. What I want to avoid is
technical reviews being done in two places at two different phases of
the process and likely covering some of the same ground.
Semi-finalized OFF amendment or revision proposals being run through
the list for archive purposes is one thing, an expectation that every
change discussion be copied to the list for review is not.

I guess it comes down to I have no idea what you mean by "changes"
that's not a "proposal". Maybe if you clarify that...