Re: My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> I agree that the current publication decision is entering the realm of 
> the absurd. Process is ad-hoc, options are not clearly communicated, and 
> the rules seem to change from day to day.

Let me recap.  I originally proposed that we simply publish Ian's draft. 
  That attracted 5 objections.  One is out of scope.  Two recommended 
actions that are not viable at this time.  One was resolved to the 
originator's satisfaction.  Each day, I showed slow but steady progress 
towards this goal.

That leaves one objection that has been partially satisfied.

Despite the objection being contrary to my recommendation, I do not 
intend to simply overrule the objection by fiat.  As they say in some 
Westerns, "first we have a fair trail, then we hang him"(*)

I believe that it is important in the course of having a fair trail to 
let the plaintiff make their case in their own words.  You and I and 
others have suggested things, but in the final analysis it is up to John 
to make his case.  If a poll is required, then it is up to John to 
propose what the poll will be.

John has produced explanation after explanation.  Outlined at a high 
level what needs to be changed.  And when people complained that they 
did not understand, he provided detailed and specific wording.

And now we have people who want to rewrite John's poll for him, or 
question the very idea of having a poll.

If it turns out that few understand John's point, I'm willing to bet 
that few will support his alternative.  And meanwhile, the option to not 
have a poll at all is still open:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0090.html

I'm not going to push forward with a poll today (Monday) so as to give 
people an opportunity to understand and explore that option.

- Sam Ruby

(*) caption for the humor impaired: IT'S A JOKE

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 05:50:54 UTC