Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > 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.) You don't have to back up your opinion if you "can live with" something. - Sam RubyReceived on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 11:30:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:41 UTC