- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:34:29 -0500
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:19 PM, L. David Baron<dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Monday 2009-08-03 17:58 -0700, John Foliot wrote: >> Within the W3C, progress is made by reaching consensus. There is no >> consensus surrounding @summary, and there is no consensus surrounding your >> current advisory text that tells authors to not use @summary. Progress >> through consensus is made when we find a meeting point that all can agree >> to. > > Requiring consensus is only a viable when the parties to be involved > in the consensus all have interests in the success of the standard. > Parties who want to see a standardization effort fail can't be > counted as part of the group among whom consensus is required. They > should instead campaign from the outside against the standard, or in > favor of an alternative. > > I think in this case there is no consensus because a small group of > people want to block consensus due to an emotional attachment to > @summary, and therefore refuse to discuss the evidence presented to > the group that it has completely failed in practice. I think a > rational discussion of that evidence would lead to the conclusions > that Ian has already reached. And I think the people involved don't > care whether the standard fails, and therefore have no incentive to > try to work with others towards reaching consensus. > > -David > > -- > L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ > Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ > > Rather than respond directly to your message, I'd like to refer you to a weblog posting I discovered on Twitter today: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html There's even a pretty graphic: http://paradox1x.org/archives/2009/08/making-a-good-c.shtml Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 02:35:11 UTC