- From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 97 19:13:32 CDT
- To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 7 May 1997 15:32:04 -0400 Bill Smith said: >I object strenusously to both the outcome of this "vote" and the process >itself. Clearly consensus was not even remotely reached on this issue. >Any review of the archives would show this as would a simple count of >the "votes". Just to clarify -- the ERB acted today, as we have since we began, under the rules of procedure we adopted at the outset. Those rules do not require consensus either in the WG or in the ERB; in order to prevent logjams and stalemates, they allow for binding decisions to be made by an absolute majority of the membership of the ERB. This has worked out better in practice than virtually any other method I have experienced or seen, and though I was in the minority on this question I strenuously defend the process as it is currently constituted. There are several reasons this WG and ERB (soon to be this SIG and WG) have been able to get through as much work as we have. One is the leadership and skill of Jon Bosak. One is the very good set of process rules Jon developed at the formation of the group. And one is the reservoir of good will and trust that we've been able to develop. Related to that last point, it may be worth pointing out that all of the dissenters on this question expressly recognized the strength of arguments supporting the draconian rule, and in a very real sense I think the ERB, at least, is far closer to consensus on this issue than appears from the vote count. -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 1997 20:24:24 UTC