Re: My final attempt on explanation (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:19 PM, L. David Baron<> 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                       
> Mozilla Corporation             

Rather than respond directly to your message, I'd like to refer you to
a weblog posting I discovered on Twitter today:

There's even a pretty graphic:


Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 02:35:11 UTC