Re: Who is the Intended Audience of the Markup Spec Proposal?

On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> [moved to www-archive]
>
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> I personally would prefer the Work Group spends its time  
>>> discussing actual tangible proposals.  And to provide everybody  
>>> equal opportunity to produce such proposals.
>> I think anyone is free to make a proposal, but that doesn't mean we  
>> should publish every proposal as a Working Draft.
>
> This is an example of the a discussion that doesn't lead to HTML5  
> becoming a better spec.

My goal in this particular discussion is to prevent it from becoming a  
worse spec, as I see it. Furthermore, I believe I have done more than  
most people to make HTML5 a better spec, and on the whole I don't  
think discouraging me from participating in mailing list discussions  
will make HTML5 a better spec. I know you have done much to make HTML5  
a better spec as well, I am not trying to compare credentials, but I  
do think it is unfair of you to lecture me on this point.

> Nor is it particularly good argument, as it is predicated on a  
> fallacy:
>
> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

I do not see how my statement is an example of a false dilemma.  
Indeed, quite the opposite. I am arguing for the middle ground of  
giving proposals due consideration, and publishing those that have  
undergone sufficient discussion and review, and which seem promising  
enough to put on the standards track, as First Public Working Drafts.  
Is there anything unreasonable about that?

Has anyone asked Mike to stop editing his document, demanded that he  
remove it from W3C space, or refused to engage him on the technical  
merits of his approach? To the contrary: many would love to discuss  
what he is doing and why it may or may not be the right thing, but you  
would like to barrel ahead without having that discussion.

If you think I am making weak arguments, then by all means, show me  
why. But so far, you haven't directly engaged any of my substantive  
points, instead diverting into this meta-meta-meta-discussion of  
whether I should be making them.

> The current process disenfranchises many.  Perhaps not you, but many.

Have you considered whether you may be disenfranchising those who  
disagree with you by forbidding them to even discuss the reasons for  
their disagreement, or to propose alternate ways of proceeding and  
giving justification for their stance?

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 12:31:44 UTC