- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:29:35 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > 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 > information. > > 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 provided. But the one counter-proposal is all or nothing, Sam. It was unconscionable that the co-chairs would allow this. > > 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. > That they be split out into separate counter-proposals, so each issue can be assessed as an individual item, rather than based on some grouping. I've asked for this, time and again. I still wouldn't support the counter-proposals, but at least, I hope, that people would then be encouraged to consider each, individually, before making their decisions. >> Shelley > > - Sam Ruby > Shelley
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 16:30:08 UTC