RE: Current standards/criteria for 'Undefined Behavior'

["Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <david.waltermire@nist.gov>]

Chris,

> > I think we want consensus (the lack of sustained objection) over
> agreement.
> Agreed.
> 
> > If a new option is chosen on the call, a new discussion period will 
> > be started
> to provide a means for the board to provide feedback.
> The first time I read through your response, I took this as a way to 
> extend the
> decision indefinitely. However, I think what you are saying is that 
> if the
> decision is changed in a substantial way, we would want to have all 
> board
> members review the decision again as if it were a new decision 
> entirely. I
> think this makes sense and should be left as an option in cases where 
> there is
> sustained objection. However, what I think we want to avoid is the 
> case
> where a decision is held up by a single Board member indefinitely.

Sure. We want transparency, not bureaucratic deadlock. I was only 
concerned about the lack of transparency that could result from a new 
change.

> 
> > Also, I would assume that two weeks starts from the time that 
> > minutes are
> posted?
> Kent had originally stated one week, and I extended this based on the 
> board
> call schedule since we would want to get consensus before or during 
> the
> next call. Assuming we get the meeting minutes out within the same 
> week as
> the call, I think this still gives about a week and a half for 
> mailing list
> discussion. Does a week and a half sound reasonable?

Why not set a minimum of 1 week and allow some flexibility to expand 
the period as needed for issues that will need more time?

Thanks,
Dave