Re: ACTION-78: Suggestion text for 1.5.4

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:12:02 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> There are options other than those two, for example, the process that our
> charter describes, or asking whether anyone can find a better solution,  
> or
> asking for reasoning and objective research to back up each proposal and
> picking the option that has the most compelling arguments.
>
> I'm not arguing for any particular model here, merely agreeing with Henri
> about the risks posed by the "can live with" design model and other
> compromise-by-committee design models.

Sam said on IRC that "can live with" or "cannot live with" still means you  
have to back up your opinion. Also, that if you options A and B, and  
everyone live with either, the editor will get to decide which of A and B  
goes into the specification. To me this seems like effectively the same  
model approached from a different angle and is worth a shot. (Though it  
could be that I'm missing something.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 10:23:42 UTC