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

Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 07:26:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4986E664.806@intertwingly.net>
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
CC: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Might I venture to suggest that Sam's proposed
> embargo on certain forms of rhetoric will never
> (and can never) be successful if reference (either
> implicit or explicit) to those forms of rhetoric
> continues to form any part of future debate on
> this list.

Never is a long time.  Suffice it to say that much of what I originally 
wrote was with Maciej specifically in mind.  If he is interested, I will 
gladly have an off-list discussion with him on what it takes to make 
this place an open forum for ideas.

> If, instead, we concentrate solely on the many
> substantive (technical and practical) issues
> which confront us, then real progress might be made.

There are definitely times when that works better.  Leif believes that 
Maciej's argument was fallacious.  Lachy disagrees.  Whatever.  The time 
to call out such arguments is when the person clearly has crossed the 
line, not when they wander somewhat near it.

In the discussion what has come out is what I believe is Leif's true 
thesis: If the group puts in place a dictator, one who from time to time 
disagrees with input; and you take a step back and look at the this 
situation from the perspective of someone who raised such an argument, 
then there is no way to distinguish between the dictator not 
understanding, ignoring the input, and simply disagreeing.  If that 
dictator is surrounded by a number of attack dogs, the working group is 
ceases to become an open working environment.

Perception=Reality.  I believe that Ian reads every note.  I believe 
that he has an excellent grasp of the subject matter.  But if enough 
people believe that he has a blind spot, and that it is futile to even 
discuss such, then the credibility of the entire effort becomes an issue.

It appears that in a small way I have given at least one participant hope.

"In establishing consensus, the Working Group must address the 
legitimate concerns of the minority."


Leif: if this is anywhere close to what you intend, then let the other 
argument go.

Leif and Maciej: consider voluntarily limiting the rate at which you 
post to the list.

> Philip TAYLOR

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 12:26:54 UTC

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