- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:22:44 +0100
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
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