- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > > Previously, I was under the impression that technical merit was the > > salient criterion, so I couched my proposal in terms of technical > > trade-offs. I can certainly be more of an objectionist if that's > > what the chairs desire. > > Why do you persist in this game? If one wants to get good results in a system that's perceived to be biased in favor of behavior unlike one's own natural behavior, it's logical to try to find out what kind of behavior one needs to emulate to get one's proposals to pass. If one looks at how much the Chairs emphasize the part of the Process document that talks about "weakest objections" (or point to it without further explanation[1]) and if one looks at the Decisions made so far, it's not unreasonable to form the hypothesis that to get one's position upheld, the effective course of action is to be more objectionist. I think it doesn't make a pleasant working environment if people feel incentivized to behave more trollishly against their natural inclination, so it would be great if the chairing were such that there'd be no reason to even hypothesize that one might gain a stronger position by being more objectionist. (See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0158.html about the "can live with" criterion as opposed to the "weakest objections" criterion.) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0341.html -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 06:30:05 UTC