Re: Process point: I'm lazy

Your question looks more like a statement :-). 

Several people have managed to edit something in the wiki then just post a 
pointer. Through the magic of diff, it's quite easy to see the exact 
changes of a person. This is most effective in the vast majority of cases 
where there is no radical disagreement, and we haven't hit any issue where 
this causes oscillation yet. It also makes clear the alternate proposal. 
Of course, people who disagree with no clear notion can do so in email. It 
may or may not make it to the wiki. I agree with Rachna about the right 
and most efficient process for moving forward. 

Plus email is so pre-web :-).

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect




Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
06/04/2007 08:38 PM

To
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
cc
Rachna Dhamija <rachna.public@gmail.com>
Subject
Process point: I'm lazy








Just wondering about this. In an otherwise excellent post
Rachna said:

 > If you disagree with anything here, please edit the wiki!

That seems to me to require me to disagree twice, and is a pattern
I think I've seen going by. Twice meaning: once editing the wiki
and once replying to the email with some context and a relevant
link.

Notwithstanding the fact that I'm not shy about disagreeing, I
think once is often enough :-) If an email thread peters out,
then that's ok since there's no interest in the counterpoint;
if not, and the criticism sticks, then we all know that
someone should update the wiki, and the original author seems
like fair game then.

But, I've been disengaged for a bit now, and so maybe this has
been working just fine, though it seems like it could create a
masquerade of non-objection as concensus (if you know what I
mean).

Thought I'd ask anyway,
S.