W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > October 2011

Re: final report process

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:52:22 -0400
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1319554342.2178.95295.camel@dbooth-laptop>
I think we just need to state what the views are, and who believes what.
If someone agrees with, disagrees with, or does not understand a
particular view, any of those facts can be noted along with that view.

It also occurred to me after the call that it may be better if we do not
mark any views as "consensus" -- even if we all agree -- because that
may imply a higher level of W3C sanctioning than we should imply.  This
goes to Jonathan's concern about avoiding language that could be
construed as making any sort of W3C-sanctioned recommendation.

David

On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 10:09 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> One other process request I'd like to make - I was thinking this
> before the meeting but forgot to bring it up. Let me know if you think
> this is draconian:
> 
> If Mallet has a dissenting view "Pigs have springs" this can be
> recorded in either of two ways
> 
> 1. If the statement makes sense to everyone, but some people just
> don't think it's true or right, then record this as:
> 
> Mallet's opinion is that pigs have springs.  or
> Mallet believes that pigs have springs.   or
> Mallet's view is that pigs have springs.   or
> Mallet's view: Pigs have springs.
> 
> 2. If the statement doesn't make sense to any signer of the report -
> i.e. its meaning (implications, consequences) are not clear, then
> record it as:
> 
> Mallet says: "Pigs have springs."  or
> Mallet: "Pigs have springs."
> (or "wrote" or "would say")
> 
> That is, something needs to make sense to everyone (at least in the
> "agree to disagree" sense) before it can be taken out of double
> quotes. A disagreement resulting from something not making sense to
> someone else is very different from a disagreement based on judgment
> or opinion. We seem to have at least as many of the former as of the
> latter. Maybe this convention will help encourage us to explain what
> we mean in terms that others can understand - or else drop material
> from the report that might better be presented elsewhere.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 14:52:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 25 October 2011 14:52:51 GMT