- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:05:17 -0400
- To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Rob Sayre wrote: > On 6/1/09 1:23 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> Rob Sayre wrote: >>> On 6/1/09 7:01 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>>> From my point of view, a push to publish a Design Principles >>>> document as a formal W3C Note is a distraction. To be clear, I am >>>> not saying that the Design Principles document itself isn't useful >>>> and interesting, but the effort to publish it as a Note means that >>>> the details of the wording is something that must be discussed. >>> >>> There seem to be group members laboring under the assumption that the >>> Design Principles document does not apply to their suggestions or >>> objections. >> >> It is a common debating technique to make grandiose claims without >> specifics. > > That claim is neither grandiose or vague. I could cite instances of this > behavior, but singling out individuals seems unproductive. > >> Now: what was your point? > > That arguing against the document is fruitless procedural stalling. > There are plenty of other working groups where one can work on standards > that will never appear in a browser. > > When the document comes up in argument, there is a possibility that the > person citing the document as support is "wrapping themselves in the > flag", but that is relatively easy to spot. If the document has been > cited correctly, then the group really breaks down: I have seen claims > that we should restart it from scratch, and claims that it's all a bunch > of wishy-washy rubbish, but mostly I see claims that the document > doesn't apply to everyone in the group. The requirement to provide citations is intended to ensure that the original input is not mischaracterized. I believe that the above contains a number of such mischaracterizations, but I can't say for sure, as you continue to decline to provide citations. > Publishing the document is a useful way to record consensus (...which is > not unanimity). I believe what we are waiting on is a draft that the author of said draft feels is ready. > - Rob - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 18:05:59 UTC