[Bug 14029] normative reference to specification whose author/editor is undisclosed

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14029

--- Comment #33 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 2011-09-06 21:21:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> > because I can exercise habeas corpus on the identified co-editor
> 
> Uh...  You must be meaning that term in a meaning that is unfamiliar to me.
> 
> > or barring something that drastic, i can ask that identified co-editor a
> > question
> 
> Which they won't be able to answer because they don't know who Ms2ger is?  Or
> which Ms2ger can answer just as well, and which you can ask him just as easily?
>  What sort of question could a co-editor answer that Ms2ger cannot?
> 
> > since i presume they are hiding something
> 
> They are: aspects of their identity.  So do we all.
> 
> > and will not respond in good faith
> 
> That's a completely warrantless assumption.  Whether someone is acting is good
> faith is best judged from that person's actions, not from random assumptions
> based on their affiliations or lack thereof....  But I sense we're not going to
> agree on the "good faith" issue here, so can we stick to the substantive IPR
> issue?

in case someone thinks I'm only interested in complaining, but not in
volunteering to do something, I'd be happy to serve as co-editor, putting my
imprimatur on the DOMPARSING work, provided that ms2ger privately revealed
his/her identity to me

that would satisfy my criteria for an identified co-editor; of course, i would
not mind if Anne, Aryeh, Henri or any other identified person serve in that
role either

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 21:21:28 UTC