- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:38:45 -0500
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
Philip TAYLOR wrote: > > Sam Ruby wrote: > >> 3) Votes, by themselves, aren't prescriptive enough. The vote was >> 47-53. Now what? This is the weakest issue I have, as it can >> straightforwardly addressed by requiring a justification. But it >> still leaves a few loose ends: when to hold a vote? Only if you are >> sure of the results? Early and often? Can somebody just keep >> retrying until a vote passes? > > Some years ago, I was elected foreman of a jury. Immediately > we entered the jury room, I called a vote. The jury was > divided 50:50. We discussed the case, and when everyone > had had a chance to speak, I called a second vote. We were > now divided 8:4. The process was repeated until we had > reached 11:1, at which point the one person not agreeing > with the majority acquiesced, and we were able to return > a unanimous decision. I cannot see why a similar process > should not lead to an equally amicable and satisfactory > outcome here. Oh, sure, pick on the weakest argument I have why don't you? :-P > Philip TAYLOR - Sam Ruby P.S. I swear that I did not see Larry's most recent post until after I posted mine. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0473.html
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 16:39:30 UTC