- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:16:13 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11682 --- Comment #6 from Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org> 2011-01-10 22:16:13 UTC --- Dana, you will have a much better chance of influencing the content of the 3.0 specs if you come to the teleconferences (and F2Fs) regularly and participate in the discussion rather than waiting until the WG has reached a consensus and then complaining about it. And please don't respond by telling us how busy you are. We're all busy, and we have to struggle to balance competing demands on our time and other resources. More specifically, when you flatly state "those functions make no sense, technical or architectural", you are not speaking for everybody. You might be speaking for yourself, or for a group of people with whom you work. But, clearly, enough members of the WG concluded that they DO make sense that they adopted a proposal to include them in 3.0. You may very well have good reason why the functions should be removed from 3.0, and sound technical arguments are appropriate. But bland, flat statements without better justification for changing our minds aren't nearly as likely to succeed. Merely saying something does not make it true. Of course you're right that the WG makes mistakes and that decisions are sometimes overturned. But the WG has to be persuaded that they did make a mistake and that the right solution is to reverse themselves. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 10 January 2011 22:16:15 UTC