W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ISSUE-145 codecs-vs-octet - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:08:11 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vqdwbxac64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:02:24 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> On 04.02.2011 15:54, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:08:45 +0100, Julian Reschke
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 04.02.2011 11:32, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>> endorses that or endorses your proposal having a later issue remove  
>>>> all
>>>> that text seems disingenuous.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, if the WG decides that.
>>
>> What if the editor simply agrees with him?
>
> If he agrees, and makes that change, and people complain, then he'll be  
> asked to revert the change (that's my understanding about changes that  
> reduce the consensus).

Right, this is exactly my problem. Not everyone likes the status quo, but  
you oppose radically changing the status quo in favor of a more minor  
change and only allow voting on the minor change. The "consensus" might  
end up being that minor change or no change. And then of course a radical  
change introduced later will undermine that "consensus", except consensus  
was never there to begin with.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 15:08:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:22 GMT