- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:18:20 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Nicolas Mendoza <mendoza@pvv.ntnu.no>
- Cc: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, João Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Nicolas Mendoza wrote: > > I suppose you agree though, that after discussing something in the open > (Hey, even I was able to comment on the naming scheme. My voice was > heard, without being member of any w3c group.) someone needs to take a > decision. It seems natural that a working group concludes on something > based on the feedback it gets, and as far as I can see the result is > according to that, in this matter. I think the mailing list is fine. However, I don't see that the current decision is any closer to the community's consensus opinion than Anne's own compromise proposal, and therefore I don't understand why the working group would override the editor on this. It raises a bad precedent. If the editor is to be overriden on every little thing -- especially in cases like this, where we're moving from a set of names that a minority liked to another set of names that a different minority likes -- then we should change the editor, as it indicates that the editor is not being trusted by the working group. (I don't think we should change the editor -- I think Anne is doing a fine job. I think the working group should let him do his job without micromanaging the names.) I should probably point out that I represent a company whose opinion is that the longer names are fine. I'm not worried about what the names are. My point is that the process by which the names were obtained is not a good one, IMHO. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2007 20:18:32 UTC