Re: My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> I agree that the current publication decision is entering the realm of 
>> the absurd. Process is ad-hoc, options are not clearly communicated, 
>> and the rules seem to change from day to day.
> 
> Let me recap.  I originally proposed that we simply publish Ian's draft. 
>  That attracted 5 objections.  One is out of scope.  Two recommended 
> actions that are not viable at this time.  One was resolved to the 
> originator's satisfaction.  Each day, I showed slow but steady progress 
> towards this goal.
> 
> That leaves one objection that has been partially satisfied.
> 
> Despite the objection being contrary to my recommendation, I do not 
> intend to simply overrule the objection by fiat.  As they say in some 
> Westerns, "first we have a fair trail, then we hang him"(*)
> 
> I believe that it is important in the course of having a fair trail to 
> let the plaintiff make their case in their own words.  You and I and 
> others have suggested things, but in the final analysis it is up to John 
> to make his case.  If a poll is required, then it is up to John to 
> propose what the poll will be.

I do believe that objections _do_ need to be resolved, but I do not 
believe that objections should postpone publishing a WD: a WD explicitly 
notes that it may not enjoy consensus from the WG.

As I see it, we definitely should work towards resolving all objections 
by LC; I don't think we should allow objections to postpone publishing a 
WD, as if we do that, I doubt we will manage to meet the heartbeat 
requirement.

-- 
Geoffrey Sneddon  Opera Software
<http://gsnedders.com/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 09:03:09 UTC