- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:17:11 -0600
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- 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>
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > 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 > > True, Manu could just say he'll stand by what he has. But can you see the spiraling effect of this? Look at our emails -- never ending emails will then transform into never ending change and counter-change proposals. Suggestion: One proposal, one version of each counter-proposal, or alternative proposal, one email thread debating the formal submissions, where authors of the proposal and counter-proposal(s) can respond. In fact, one formal discussion thread, introduced by the chairs who provide a link to both, and a timeline for discussion. When decisions are made, both the proposals and the associated formal discussion thread could be used to make a decision (or call for a vote). Could this be both a fair approach, and actually have an end point? Or am I quashing discussions again. Shelley
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 20:17:44 UTC