RE: Process point: I'm lazy

I think that there is a meta point here and a pragmatic one
 
Pragmatic: just use the tools as they are
 
Meta: the tools really do not fit together the way they should, they are clearly first generation.


________________________________

	From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mary Ellen Zurko
	Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:44 AM
	To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell
	Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
	Subject: Re: Process point: I'm lazy
	
	

	Your question looks more like a statement :-). 
	
	Several people have managed to edit something in the wiki then just post a pointer. Through the magic of diff, it's quite easy to see the exact changes of a person. This is most effective in the vast majority of cases where there is no radical disagreement, and we haven't hit any issue where this causes oscillation yet. It also makes clear the alternate proposal. Of course, people who disagree with no clear notion can do so in email. It may or may not make it to the wiki. I agree with Rachna about the right and most efficient process for moving forward. 
	
	Plus email is so pre-web :-).
	
	          Mez
	
	Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
	Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect
	
	
	
	
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org 

06/04/2007 08:38 PM

To
public-wsc-wg@w3.org 
cc
Rachna Dhamija <rachna.public@gmail.com> 
Subject
Process point: I'm lazy

	




	
	
	Just wondering about this. In an otherwise excellent post
	Rachna said:
	
	> If you disagree with anything here, please edit the wiki!
	
	That seems to me to require me to disagree twice, and is a pattern
	I think I've seen going by. Twice meaning: once editing the wiki
	and once replying to the email with some context and a relevant
	link.
	
	Notwithstanding the fact that I'm not shy about disagreeing, I
	think once is often enough :-) If an email thread peters out,
	then that's ok since there's no interest in the counterpoint;
	if not, and the criticism sticks, then we all know that
	someone should update the wiki, and the original author seems
	like fair game then.
	
	But, I've been disengaged for a bit now, and so maybe this has
	been working just fine, though it seems like it could create a
	masquerade of non-objection as concensus (if you know what I
	mean).
	
	Thought I'd ask anyway,
	S.