[uf-discuss] issue rejection governance? (Was: rel-tag title as tag value)

[James Craig]

Mike Kaply wrote:

> I want a solution that involves the web page, NOT the server.

I agree, but my response here is not about rel-tag. It uses rel-tag  
as an example in a larger issue regarding issue rejection.

In the month or so I've been on the discussion list, the "rel-tag  
title" issue has been raised many times, indicating a valid need for  
a less-than-ideal alternative. Many of the stake-holders seem to have  
tagspace-enabled sites (Technorati, Flickr, etc.) and, while that is  
the ideal situation, they also seem defiant in their willingness to  
admit creating a tagspace is problematic for many users. I tracked  
down what I believe to be the documentation of the first time this  
issue was rejected.

Quoted from:  http://microformats.org/wiki?title=rel-tag- 
issues&diff=4885&oldid=4881

"Issue 3: It's not reasonable to restrict the host's REST  
implementation according to this spec's rather limited idea of a  
'good' tag URL. The idea of tags as query parameters is rejected  
without justification, for example. Query parameters are a perfectly  
legitimate means of denoting state.' REJECTED, IGNORES ESTABLISHED  
PRACTICE. Flickr and del.icio.us and other tagging sites established  
the defacto standard of having the tag term be denoted by the last  
segment in the URL and thus defined what makes a 'good' tag URL. rel- 
tag has codified this good practice."

I was not on the list at the time, and therefore cannot verify that  
this issue was not discussed openly, but I also cannot find on the  
wiki the due process of issue rejection. Format rejection is defined,  
but issue rejection seems arbitrary. The closest thing I can find is  
"some issues are REJECTED for a number of obvious reasons and others  
contain longer discussions" on the Microformat Issues page. I am not  
implying the uf group step to the deliberation level of ISO or the  
W3C, but some issues should not be noted as REJECTED by an  
individual, at least not without fair consideration and voting. If  
this process exists, or if there is a process for rejection APPEAL,  
it needs to be documented. If it does not exist, it needs to be defined.

For example, the previously noted rejection statement seems  
opinionated to me. If for no other reason, the frequency of this  
request demands that it receive more consideration and deliberation.

Thanks for your consideration,
James Craig