Re: Process for proposals

On May 20, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> 3) The issue about what the document itself is named (raised by Roy  
> Fielding[2]) is also something that needs to be resolved.  This  
> issue primarily affects the title page and little else.

The title of the document is not a technical issue, so I don't think  
we need to give a great deal of consideration to minority objectors.  
Particularly when the proposed alternative is (a) inaccurate on the  
face of it; (b) intended to downplay the value of the spec. I think we  
should let the spec be titled by people who are generally in agreement  
with its technical direction, and then assess consensus on its  
technical contents, rather than changing the title to suit the  
preferences of those who disagree with the contents.

Regards,
Maciej