W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUES 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 -- if you DON'T support these change proposals, support zero-change instead

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:22:25 -0400
Message-ID: <4BDB03C1.7000609@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 04/30/2010 11:12 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> On 04/30/2010 09:24 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> I asked in another email to respond if you supported these change
>>> proposals. Many thanks to Laura for being the only person who does.
>>> Now, I'm trying to gauge (or is that meter?) the support for "zero
>>> change, all of these items are fine the way they are" change proposal.
>>> Laura had a good point: if you support the zero-change proposal,
>>> you're saying, in effect, these items are fine, just as they are.
>>> I'm trying to determine how much _direct_ support there is for the
>>> zero-change proposal. This will help me decide what I need to do about
>>> my change proposals. If you believe that the elements are fine, as is,
>>> and no change is necessary, can you please respond to this email?
>>> Needless to say, if you support any of my change proposals, please
>>> respond in the other email thread.
>> As I just said on another thread[1], I'd like to discourage the use of this
>> mailing list for expressing sentiments of +1.  Instead, I would encourage
>> everybody to review all proposals and decide which ones they would object
>> to, identify with as much precision as possible the reasons why they would
>> object to those proposals, and (if at all possible) identify what changes
>> could be made to those proposals which would result in a proposal that they
>> could support.
>> Note that in the above I said "this mailing list".  There are plenty of
>> other venues for doing what Shelley suggests: create a wiki page, use
>> www-archive, IRC, twitter, email, phone, meetups, whatever.
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1287.html
> I was hoping to get responses such as those you've asked for.

Cool.  Then we are on the same side.  And since you are seeking such 
responses, it is only fair that you be prepared to provide similar 

Shelley: what, specifically, could be changed in any of the counter 
proposals which would result in a new proposal that you could support?

> I can't believe that people dislike ALL of the change proposals,
> equally. I think that the fact that the co-chairs grouped these from
> the beginning has left them grouped, regardless of what people think
> about the individual items.
> If some have less resistance than others, then I can figure out if I
> need to strengthen my change proposals more, or consider dropping a
> couple in order to focus on the rest.
> With them grouped, I'm stymied as to action, because these items are
> not the same. They are very different constructs. I don't understand
> the same reasons being applied to ALL the items.

What we need here is new information.  Yes, all of the original 
proposals were submitted at essentially the same time.  Yes, some people 
saw some commonality and inquired if they could group the counter 
proposals as they saw fit.  Yes, the chairs not only acknowledged the 
presence of such questions, we said that we weren't going to constrain 
the organization of the proposals be presented.  Yes, after the counter 
proposals were produced, there were questions asked about how some 
elements seemed different than others.  And, yes there were answers 

What we, the co-chairs, are looking for is reaching a point where 
everybody involved feels that they have said everything that needs to be 
said.  When we reach that point it seems likely that some form of survey 
for objections on one or more of these issues will be the next step.  If 
it turns out that changes can be made to any of the existing proposals 
or counter proposals that meets with general approval, then all the better.

So, once again, Shelley: what, specifically, could be changed in any of 
the counter proposals which would result in a new proposal that you 
could support?  What we need here is new information.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 16:22:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:40 UTC