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

Re: [selectors-api] The Naming Debate

From: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:00:02 +0200
Message-ID: <6c97b8b10706271800gc744437y2efafe0c1713210d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>

Hi Doug,

2007/6/28, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>:
> I understand and sympathize with your frustration.  But I'd ask you to
> consider the relative weight of the importance of the naming convention.

Yes, I know it's not that important, but I still feel it's important.
(thanks for your sympathy, though)
And now I'm also being treated unfairly, in my opinion (or am I not?),
which makes it impossible to ignore. (I really wish I could ignore
this all, I really do :( )

> 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.

Sorry, but I just can't ignore it that there was a vote upon this, and
that got just pushed away, without even mentioning or explaining it.
Voting doesn't count, it seems.
That's a bad thing, don't you think?

> > Well, I won't "block any progress" from now on :(
> I didn't imply that dissent blocks progress.

Sorry, I meant that I won't participate anymore.
I'm just getting unhappy by this and it's affecting the work that I
really should be doing.

> 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.

Well, the way I see it is different. There was a vote on it, the
editor didn't like it and went his own way.
And now he (they?) got away with it, in "the interest of cooperating
toward a mutually beneficial end"?

I feel cheated :(

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 01:00:14 UTC

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