W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:12:52 +0000
Message-ID: <49845C64.5050600@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Dear Sam -- May I ask for clarification on just one
point of your recent message :

Sam Ruby wrote:

> a) I've made a number of references to 'independent'.  I recognize that 
> that is entirely subjective, and up to the chairs to evaluate. hsivonen, 
> maciej, and lachy often agree on things, but generally are considered 
> independent.  By contrast, if an issue is raised by jonas and ONLY 
> endorsed by rsayre and dbaron, depending on the issue at hand, that may 
> not be recognized by the chairs as sufficient. 

I simply do not understand the rationale behind this.

On what basis are you (as Chairman) willing to accept
hsivonen,  maciej, and lachy as three independent witnesses,
while denying the same status to jonas, rsayre and dbaron ?

And to address the same point from a different perspective,
by /whom/ are "hsivonen, maciej, and lachy generally considered
independent" ?

Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 14:13:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:41 UTC