- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 09:20:04 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> >> Sam Ruby wrote: >>> >>> But I'm quite willing that put my opinions aside. If the consensus of >>> the working group is to have a vote on either a set of short essays or >>> on a comprehensive wiki page, then I'm willing to both facilitate the >>> vote and to attempt to evaluate consensus on the results. >> >> My personal opinion on this issue is that I would rather not have a purely >> technical issue be resolved through a working group vote. If we were to >> proceed with this vote to decide whether or not to include the summary >> attribute, it would be the first time such a vote has been used to resolve a >> purely technical issue in this working group, and, IMHO, would set an >> unfortunate precedent, subverting the process that has been used for all >> prior decisions based on logical and technical reasoning. >> >> While I'm confident in the ability of this group as a whole to >> collectively reach the right conclusion, if, as a result of the vote, the >> summary attribute was included, it would be a clear symptom of a design by >> committee process — a process I think we should try to avoid — simply to >> appease some particularly vocal group members, despite the almost total lack >> of any empirical evidence in support of their position. >> >> I think the best way to proceed with this issue is for the chairs to >> accept that all evidence submitted so far has been fairly analysed, and that >> based on the available evidence, the correct decision has been made. Then >> the issue should be closed, and remain closed until such time as additional >> evidence, preferably in the form of scientifc studies, is presented that >> overturns the result of all previous observational data seen, and >> contradicts the current outcome. > > For the record: I strongly disagree with this opinion. There are good > technical reasons from both sides, and there doesn't seem to be another way > to end the discussion. > > And yes, this would be the first vote of this kind, but I don't expect it'll > be the last. > > Best regards, Julian > > I agree with Julian. There is no empirical data to support either side in this issue. Reviewing randomly accessed web pages is not a proper study, and conclusions reached based on this review are subjective. In addition, there is a looming deadline related to last call, so there is no time to do proper studies. Frankly, neither side likely has the resources necessary to do proper studies. Shelley
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 14:20:44 UTC