Re: Process for proposals

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
Point of clarification: exactly what is a "minority objector"?

Shelley