- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:54:17 -0400
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
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. I am charged with determining consensus. I do not believe that a careful analysis of the data in this case inevitably would lead to the result that there is only one single "correct" decision. Nor am I yet prepared to declare that the current draft represents the consensus position of the Working Group. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 18:54:58 UTC