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 04:43:40 +0200
Message-ID: <6c97b8b10706271943j228803e8g5e6e2c8562461a8e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>

2007/6/28, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>:
> Hi, Martijn-
> Martijn wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> I'm very sorry to hear that.  I don't want you to feel like you were
> forced out of the process, and I hope that with time you will
> participate again.

I do feel I was forced out of the process. Apparently things were
decided without informing anyone subscribed on the mailing list.
Informing people on the decision progress is an essential thing.

How could this happen?
It should have never happened.

> > 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.
> Just to clarify, it's not the policy of the W3C to vote on issues.  We
> conduct strawpolls to judge consensus, which is not quite the same
> thing.  Voting, I think, would create a mess of power blocs and lead to
> all sorts of divisiveness and rancor.  Ideally, striving to get everyone
> on the same page has a better, more technically sound outcome and
> promotes cooperation.  But it's slow and sometimes frustrating, I agree.

The issue was voted upon, there was an outcome.
Now, the opposite is being done of what the outcome was.

I can't believe that is normal. How often does that happen within the W3C?


> Regards-
> -Doug
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 02:43:49 UTC

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