- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:36:21 +0100
- To: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
- CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Fred, On 13/02/2014 13:29 , Fred Andrews wrote: > > Of course, this leaves the door open to all manners of things. A group > > could decide to arbitrate between two incompatible positions using the > > best-of-three in an air hockey game. > > Well, no, this would not be professional and would bring the W3C and the > HTML WG into disrepute. > > > One may have doubts as to the > > technical quality of the outcome, but it would be fine per Process. At > > the other end of the spectrum, participants could very well resort to > > assassination of dissenters. > > That is a despicable statement, absolutely despicable. Clearly, you completely failed to understand. Let me take some examples. If it surfaced that AppCache had been designed by picking features based on air hockey results and you objected on process grounds then you'd be wrong. It would not represent a violation of the process. The operational criticism would be to show that it obviously fails at the technical level. By the same token, if I decided to assassinate, say, Ted, because I find his lack of faith in Service Workers disturbing; and you objected on process grounds then you'd be wrong. There is nothing in the process that says I can't kill Ted. The process is, in absolute and incontrovertible fact, quite happy with me killing Ted if what happens next is consensus. You're entitled to think of the process as one cold bastard of a document, but the fact remains that the operational criticism for such an action would take place at the moral and (in most legislations) legal levels. You may well be correct in your moral condemnation of DRM, no matter how hard you seem to want to prevent people from endearing themselves to your position. This does not, however, make anything you might dislike a process violation. If you are unable to comprehend such distinctions, then I would suggest kindly, but candidly, that you may wish to rethink how you occupy your time. > Please expect the FBI knocking on your door. Oh dear, I'd better put some tea on then. Poor things must be tired from the long trip. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 17:36:26 UTC