W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [selectors-api] The Naming Debate

From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:03:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4682ECBE.60005@vectoreal.com>
To: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>

Hi, Martijn-

Martijn wrote:
> 2007/6/27, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>:
>> I could not agree more with this sentiment.  I know of no reason this
>> issue should have been reopened, since there was no new evidence.  But
>> ultimately, it is not that important, which makes it all the more
>> frustrating that it was reopened and effort was wasted.
> Yeah, this is a "me too".
> However, I do think this is important.
> So basically, I'm just really unhappy about this.
> Just posting a new proposal, without even mentioning about what was
> decided before, it's just very frustrating to me :(
> I feel being treated very unfairly :(

I understand and sympathize with your frustration.  But I'd ask you to 
consider the relative weight of the importance of the naming convention.

In my view, it is far more important that this API be specified and 
implemented (and made available to authors) than to continue the debate 
about names.  Considerable energy has already been invested in this 
debate, and though the outcome is not what I'd have thought best, the 
mere fact of the names being (in my view) suboptimal doesn't change the 
underlying functionality.

>> > However, and for the sake of progress, we will go along with the new 
>> > decision taken in consensus by the WebAPI WG.
>> That's very gracious of you.  It's important that we use consensus to
>> move forward, rather than to block progress.
> Well, I won't "block any progress" from now on :(

I didn't imply that dissent blocks progress.

If anything, I contend that reopening an issue that was closed by the 
group had the potential to block progress, and that the editor is 
fortunate that others have not sought to press the issue.  That some 
people were not happy with the naming convention decided by the group 
was insufficient cause to reopen the issue, since an equal number of 
people are now unhappy with the new names; it's worth saying that 
consensus is not the same as unanimity, but is a process whereby people 
decide the manner in which they will cooperate toward a mutually 
beneficial end.

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 23:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC