- From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:03:26 -0400
- To: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>
Hi, Martijn- Martijn wrote: > > 2007/6/27, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>: >> >> I could not agree more with this sentiment. I know of no reason this >> issue should have been reopened, since there was no new evidence. But >> ultimately, it is not that important, which makes it all the more >> frustrating that it was reopened and effort was wasted. > > Yeah, this is a "me too". > However, I do think this is important. > So basically, I'm just really unhappy about this. > Just posting a new proposal, without even mentioning about what was > decided before, it's just very frustrating to me :( > I feel being treated very unfairly :( I understand and sympathize with your frustration. But I'd ask you to consider the relative weight of the importance of the naming convention. In my view, it is far more important that this API be specified and implemented (and made available to authors) than to continue the debate about names. Considerable energy has already been invested in this debate, and though the outcome is not what I'd have thought best, the mere fact of the names being (in my view) suboptimal doesn't change the underlying functionality. >> > However, and for the sake of progress, we will go along with the new >> > decision taken in consensus by the WebAPI WG. >> >> That's very gracious of you. It's important that we use consensus to >> move forward, rather than to block progress. > > Well, I won't "block any progress" from now on :( I didn't imply that dissent blocks progress. If anything, I contend that reopening an issue that was closed by the group had the potential to block progress, and that the editor is fortunate that others have not sought to press the issue. That some people were not happy with the naming convention decided by the group was insufficient cause to reopen the issue, since an equal number of people are now unhappy with the new names; it's worth saying that consensus is not the same as unanimity, but is a process whereby people decide the manner in which they will cooperate toward a mutually beneficial end. Regards- -Doug
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 23:03:35 UTC