- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:12:10 +0100
- To: public-publ-wg@w3.org
Le 09/02/2018 à 18:55, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken a écrit : > Please do not tell us that others are wrong. Please do not tell us why > the charter is flawed. Please do not tell us that we are in pursuit of > an errant dream. If you have these opinions, they are important to > share, but please do not mix discussions of chartering and scope of the > group and charter with technical issues. It leads to endless back and > forth and prevents us from getting anything accomplished. > > To those who have been sharing implementations and positive discussion, > thank you, and keep up the good work. Ahem. So let's go back to the technical side, following your wishes above: several non-n00b people here don't understand where we're TECHNICALLY going to, don't understand why we're chosing that given TECHNICAL path and why it's the best choice. In terms of REC track, it means that the WG is heading to a suboptimal, if not problematic, vote on PR and REC transitions. Is this WG going to call it, are you going to call it, a negative discussion or can we be proactive and discuss the issue before it becomes highly critical (said with my AC-Rep hat on)? </Daniel>
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2018 15:12:40 UTC