- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:33:36 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 14/04/15 17:04, David Singer wrote: > Your debating tone and technique leave quite a bit to be desired, and it’s beginning to get to me. Could you please try to avoid characterizing positions you disagree with as “pointless and conservative”, especially when points have, in fact, been made, that you have not even tried to refute? David, three things: First, I am naming a cat a cat. Many saw the last episode about Alex as ridiculous and a scandal, that's factual. If you want me to use more politically correct vocabulary, it won't change the fact and the word "scandal" is not inappropriate, it's precisely my opinion and it was shared by many. Second, I have the feeling the current proposal is over-conservative for false "safety" reasons and I find it therefore pointless or at least a weak - too weak - compromise that does not solve the original issue. I don't think "conservative" and "pointless" are offending or vulgar. You made your points, and I very strongly disagree with them. If I can't say why (conservative, pointless, complicated, ambiguous), there is no debate. Third, you said you want to "move on" and have agreed with Chaals on it, just as if you spent too much time on this while there is still input - from me, bkardell and oh wait a co-chair of the TAG - on this issue. This is another debating technique there is a lot to say about. Even when a specification seems to have stabilized, we're able to relaunch the debate when important points are made. Why is it different here? </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 06:34:13 UTC