- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:08:51 -0500
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote: > > I think another area of clarification is that if someone does a > counter-proposal, the person who submitted the proposal shouldn't have > to "address" the issues in the counter-proposal. > > We could end up in a never ending spiral if we follow this > proposal/counter-proposal/counter-counter--- well, you get the drift. > > We need to find one set of rules, and if we change them, we need to > grandfather older proposals in. For fairness if no other reason. > > People putting out suggestions, and carefully written proposals > shouldn't have to jump through an ever changing set of hoops. We're > all here to try and help, not cause problems. I'm concerned about the opposite problem: a perception that "you get one shot at it, at which point somebody can make a counter proposal after having seen every argument you have made, and you get no shot at rebutting". Put another way, and applied to the situation at hand: if Manu and/or others don't wish to update the current change proposal, simply say so, and we will go with what we have got now. No hoops, completely fair, but no opportunity to address the points that have been brought up in response to the proposal. Personally, I think Maciej provided a lot of value by identifying points that might merit revisiting. And, to be fair, he did so on both the original proposal and counter-proposal. > Shelley - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 20:09:25 UTC