- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:54:27 -0800
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
In highly contentious environments, one failure mode for "voting" is that attempts to vote descend into arguments about the nature of the question. At least in juries, the question has been put and there are rules about the scope of the arguments given and legitimate modes of discourse; the chair (judge) has some power to control arguments and rule some topics out of order. In this case, some members of the committee continue to want to debate the normative nature of specifications--should they eventually be moved to Recommendation--when the question raised is actually whether to publish the specification as FPWD in order to promote wider review. The question isn't whether the markup spec is useful. The question is whether the working group should publish it as FPWD. Repeating a misstatement of the question in twitterland isn't particularly helpful to resolving the actual question. Pointing out the discrepancy between the question asked and the arguments given hasn't been useful so far; I am trying not to repeat myself. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 16:55:16 UTC