Re: ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

On 03/02/2011 06:36 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> 's/support/vehement support'

At first I thought this was a joke and thought I would let it pass, but 
now it is apparent that it is a genuine misunderstanding:

To be clear: saying you support something is not an objection.  Saying 
that you vehemently support something doesn't make it an objection.

At some point in the future there will likely be a survey on this issue. 
  At that point you will be presented with the opportunity to state your 
objections to either proposal.  Statements at such time indicating 
support for a proposal will be ignored.  What we will be looking for is 
objections.  There will be no need to contribute to the survey if you 
feel that your objection has already been adequately expressed by 
others, either on the survey or in the change proposal you support.  But 
if you have anything to add that you don't feel has been adequately 
expressed by either already, that would be the time to do so.  If you 
are not sure, go ahead and express it anyway as long as it is your own 
words and not merely repeating sentiments that were already expressed.

I hope this helps.

- Sam Ruby

> On 2 March 2011 23:20, Sam Ruby<>  wrote:
>> On 03/02/2011 04:23 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>>> So instead of formalising my own proposal, I'd like to express my
>>> support for RDFaPrefixesNoChange.
>> For those who have recently joined the group, I'd like to draw your
>> attention to a standard part of every survey we issue (example[1]):
>>    This is not a popularity contest. The Working Group Decision
>>    will be based on the strength of objections, not the number
>>    of people expressing them.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Danny.
>> [1]

Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 18:48:20 UTC