W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:56:43 -0800
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <29D57084-D84E-4A21-9667-4BE1F8D6A441@apple.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>

On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak 2009-01-31 22.55:
>> On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:30 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> The W3C's HTML WG has the following decision policy:
>    [...]
>>> With those caveats in place, here goes:
>> I don't think your description is in conflict with what I stated.  
>> The one part I disagree with is that any raised issue that at least  
>> three people agree is an issue must be flagged in Working Drafts. I  
>> do think it is often a good idea to mark especially controversial  
>> issues, or especially pervasive and clearly unresolved issues, but  
>> I think doing this as a matter of course may create a lot of work.  
>> I would say instead that we should exercise reasonable judgment  
>> about when a flag in the draft is warranted.
> Stating his disagreement. (Conditionally permitted by Sam.)
>> P.S. I know you asked people not to state their agreement on the  
>> list. But since your email was a reply to me, but since your email  
>> was a reply to me and since I think it is helpful to the group to  
>> see people coming to agreement, I chose to make an exception.
> Claiming to have stated his agreement.
> Sam:
>> Keep a watch out for these three, and call them out when you see  
>> them.
> I see a "strawman".

A strawman argument is one where you misstate someone else's position.  
If you think I misstated my own position (which is to largely agree,  
with a minor point of disagreement), then your objection is something  
else (inconsistency?).

Personally, I think accusing people of making strawman arguments is  
disruptive and a waste of time. It is better to assume good faith on  
the part of anyone you disagree with, and reply to what they say on  
the level, unless you have reason to believe otherwise.

In this case especially, I was trying to promote agreement, and you  
chose to pick a fight over it. It's hard to see how that will make  
discussion on this list more constructive.

Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 03:57:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC