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

Process Model [was: ACTION-78: Suggestion text for 1.5.4]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:30:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4975B5BD.7090907@intertwingly.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:12:02 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> There are options other than those two, for example, the process that our
>> charter describes, or asking whether anyone can find a better 
>> solution, or
>> asking for reasoning and objective research to back up each proposal and
>> picking the option that has the most compelling arguments.
>>
>> I'm not arguing for any particular model here, merely agreeing with Henri
>> about the risks posed by the "can live with" design model and other
>> compromise-by-committee design models.
> 
> Sam said on IRC that "can live with" or "cannot live with" still means 
> you have to back up your opinion. Also, that if you options A and B, and 
> everyone live with either, the editor will get to decide which of A and 
> B goes into the specification. To me this seems like effectively the 
> same model approached from a different angle and is worth a shot. 
> (Though it could be that I'm missing something.)

You don't have to back up your opinion if you "can live with" something.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 11:30:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC