- From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 01:05:29 +0000
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- CC: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] > I think our obligation is to say "You must be attentive." I do not think our obligation is to scare people off. [Milan] I don't want to scare people off either, but it's wrong to omit details that would surprise them. I'm certain people would be surprised to learn, for example, a chair can make commitments on a public forum and then recount without due process to the group. There are only two choices: * Educate participants on topics that are likely to surprise them. The visibility of the education must be in proportion to the expected surprise. A "note" that participants should "seek additional information" isn't proportional to the potential dangers. * Change the rules so that surprising circumstances are prevented by the framework. I'm sympathetic to the difficulties opposing this approach.
Received on Friday, 28 December 2012 01:06:10 UTC