Re: ISSUES 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 -- if you DON'T support these change proposals, support zero-change instead

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 04/30/2010 09:24 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>> I asked in another email to respond if you supported these change
>> proposals. Many thanks to Laura for being the only person who does.
>>
>> Now, I'm trying to gauge (or is that meter?) the support for "zero
>> change, all of these items are fine the way they are" change proposal.
>> Laura had a good point: if you support the zero-change proposal,
>> you're saying, in effect, these items are fine, just as they are.
>>
>> I'm trying to determine how much _direct_ support there is for the
>> zero-change proposal. This will help me decide what I need to do about
>> my change proposals. If you believe that the elements are fine, as is,
>> and no change is necessary, can you please respond to this email?
>>
>> Needless to say, if you support any of my change proposals, please
>> respond in the other email thread.
>
> As I just said on another thread[1], I'd like to discourage the use of this
> mailing list for expressing sentiments of +1.  Instead, I would encourage
> everybody to review all proposals and decide which ones they would object
> to, identify with as much precision as possible the reasons why they would
> object to those proposals, and (if at all possible) identify what changes
> could be made to those proposals which would result in a proposal that they
> could support.
>
> Note that in the above I said "this mailing list".  There are plenty of
> other venues for doing what Shelley suggests: create a wiki page, use
> www-archive, IRC, twitter, email, phone, meetups, whatever.
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1287.html
>
>

I was hoping to get responses such as those you've asked for.

I can't believe that people dislike ALL of the change proposals,
equally. I think that the fact that the co-chairs grouped these from
the beginning has left them grouped, regardless of what people think
about the individual items.

If some have less resistance than others, then I can figure out if I
need to strengthen my change proposals more, or consider dropping a
couple in order to focus on the rest.

With them grouped, I'm stymied as to action, because these items are
not the same. They are very different constructs. I don't understand
the same reasons being applied to ALL the items.

Shelley

Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 15:13:04 UTC