- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:12:35 +0300
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 15/04/15 15:19, David Singer wrote: > As I said, I and many others have had actual experience of counter-examples to (1), and there is plenty of research indicating how strong (2) is and how difficult to resist. > > There are other reasons that people have put forward, earlier in the discussion, and you have not addressed them either. I have similar stories to tell. In certain circumstances, employers push on employees' shoulders. Even if it's possible in the TAG, I think the structure of the TAG makes it almost impossible for such employers to impose a view that is not consensual anyway. And it's considerably harder in public www-tag. I can't address a problem I don't see. We have two entirely different perspectives: you assume an issue is probable and take 'a priori' counter-measures that I find too heavy. I assume the issue is highly unprobable or at least easily contained and I prefer 'a posteriori' measures to 'a priori' counter-measures, and you find that too light. I trust Tim and TAG Co-chairs to shut down any attempt by a vendor to impose undesirable views to the whole TAG. You prefer representativity limitations. These are two irreconciliable views, I guess. </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 06:13:02 UTC