- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:29:19 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Doug Schepers wrote: > > [...] I made exactly the point that you did -- you should have an editor who makes decisions, but can be overriden by a working group when the decisions are not representative of the community. As you say, the WG here just moved from one minority opinion to another minority opinion. So this isn't a case where Anne's decision was not representative of the wider community. As you say, this is a minor issue. Given those two points, I don't see why the WG would override the editor on this case. (And yes, I think a benign dictator (Anne) answerable to a committee (the WG) and representing the wider community will create far better specifications than a committee (the WG) answerable to a dictator (TBL) and representing the interests of only the companies involved.) > Someone needed to settle the discussion, and those of us who attended > the meeting did so. What makes those of us who can afford to pay the W3C membership fee and afford to attend the meetings more entitled to make this decision than the rest of the community, or than the editor? Especially in cases where there is no clear concensus either way, so that the editor is not being forced down a path that represents the community better, but is just being forced to take a different minority position? Especially on an issue that, as you point out, will never be more than a minor pain? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2007 21:29:34 UTC