- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:55:01 +0100
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html@w3.org, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Apologies for delay replying. I have been away for a long weekend break. Thanks to people who did respond to the original text. I agree with Lachlan that it reads more like a position paper and it is a fair comment that it initially only shows 'one side' of the argument. I had thought that others who have different opinions etc would add/edit the text and a sort of editorial ping-pong would happen. This hasn't really been the case, although there were some suggestions made to me off list. Aside from the text issue, a part of the problem is confusion about what we are actually voting on. This has obfuscated the issue. As far as I am concerned, this vote was not about engineering a new solution, but is/was (sic) about re-instating the @summary (as is) into the spec. Some want this, others don't. For me @summary should stay as is, until a better solution is found, then by all means obsolete it. There hasn't been a better solution put forward yet. While I was away (for all of three days) it seems like my text has been rejected, and the idea of a poll abandoned, and the whole @summary issue also seems conflated with a separate (though related) issue about W3C processes. Thats fast work! When all things are considered, I think at this point the very idea of a having a voting/straw poll is moot - and while it may not politically astute thing to say - this is a waste of time. 'A man changed against his will is of the same opinion still' (Butler) [1] Josh [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudibras
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 12:55:55 UTC