- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:20:03 -0400
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/06/2010 05:10 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: > > I'm not going to formally object to this interesting segue in the > procedure, but I believe that anyone that writes one counter to all is > doing so with the assumption that the co-chairs and group have already > made a decision regardless of the strengths of the argument. This > assumption is more likely trigger me to file a Formal Objection if my > changes are rejected. Issues 1 and 2 were decided together. For these issues (new semantic elements/attributes). The chairs have not made a decision. > Decisions should be based on sound reasoning, and strong rationales, > not popularity. I think I remember someone saying that sometime in the > past. When a decision is made, it will be based on sound reasoning and strong rationales, not based on the number of separate emails. Decisions will not be based on popularity. > Shelley - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:20:40 UTC