Re: Moratorium on the spec-splitting discussion

Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> 
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> 3) Votes, by themselves, aren't prescriptive enough.  The vote was 
>> 47-53.  Now what?  This is the weakest issue I have, as it can 
>> straightforwardly addressed by requiring a justification.  But it 
>> still leaves a few loose ends: when to hold a vote?  Only if you are 
>> sure of the results?  Early and often?  Can somebody just keep 
>> retrying until a vote passes?
> 
> Some years ago, I was elected foreman of a jury.  Immediately
> we entered the jury room, I called a vote.  The jury was
> divided 50:50.  We discussed the case, and when everyone
> had had a chance to speak, I called a second vote.  We were
> now divided 8:4.  The process was repeated until we had
> reached 11:1, at which point the one person not agreeing
> with the majority acquiesced, and we were able to return
> a unanimous decision.  I cannot see why a similar process
> should not lead to an equally amicable and satisfactory
> outcome here.

Oh, sure, pick on the weakest argument I have why don't you? :-P

> Philip TAYLOR

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  I swear that I did not see Larry's most recent post until after I 
posted mine.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0473.html