- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:10:52 -0500
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> >> I'm finding it difficult to perceive "can live with" and "can't live >> with" as anything other than a form of vote. The statement itself isn't >> an argument, and frankly whether someone can or can't live with >> something doesn't matter in the least. What matters is just the quality >> of the argument put forth and it should make no difference whether >> someone explicitly says they can or can't live with something. It's >> also pointless to get people to say it explicitly since it's much easier >> to evaluate someone's position based on the arguments they put forth, >> than relying on an explicit binary statement. > > If we were to allow people to equate "can't live with" with "I'd prefer > something else", we do end up there. So I propose that we don't do that. It bothers me greatly that this conversation appears to have petered out. This working group has a lot of talented and opinionated people. Ones that will toss out an objection at the drop of a hat. This was widely (and rightfully, I might add) parodied at today's conference call. And traditionally the chairs of this working group have gone out of their way to interpret a simple "no" on a survey[1] or somebody saying the words "I object" as a formal objection. That above combination does not lead to any place good. Lachy, I do hope that what we have here is a semantic problem in that we both are using similar words to mean quite different things[2]. I *do* intend to require those who wish to push forward a forward objection to "cite technical arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection."[3] I *do* intend to allow editors freedom to pick from the available alternatives as they see fit. While I would encourage them to listen to all input (both pro and con) and to base their decisions on this input, that is not something I wish to interpose myself in. Is this unclear? If not, even if you have reservations, can we agree to see if this is workable? If this is more than a semantic error, I claim that if this is as unworkable as you appear to think it is, we should be able to quickly see that. Deal? - Sam Ruby. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0146.html [2] http://xrl.us/bedfxh [3] http://xrl.us/bedfxs
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 19:11:30 UTC