Re: What is Process Good For?

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> Noting that there doesn't seem to be others agreeing with my points,
> perhaps this thread should be wound down.  At a minimum, I'll respond less
> frequently.


Actually, no, Sam, I just think you're doing a fine job of expressing my
views too.  In particular:

>Meanwhile, I will caution you: if you continue to attempt to keep a tight
grip on the standards you have through onerous Invited Expert terms and
conditions and Document Licenses, what I suspect is that you will
increasingly find that standards will be defined -- WITH CONSENSUS! --
elsewhere.  And the W3C will be reduced to belatedly giving their stamp of
approval.

+1.