W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUES 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 -- if you DON'T support these change proposals, support zero-change instead

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:29:35 -0500
Message-ID: <i2z643cc0271004300929vd73da4f5p82c73f028d2b7f41@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 04/30/2010 11:12 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>>> On 04/30/2010 09:24 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> I asked in another email to respond if you supported these change
>>>> proposals. Many thanks to Laura for being the only person who does.
>>>> Now, I'm trying to gauge (or is that meter?) the support for "zero
>>>> change, all of these items are fine the way they are" change proposal.
>>>> Laura had a good point: if you support the zero-change proposal,
>>>> you're saying, in effect, these items are fine, just as they are.
>>>> I'm trying to determine how much _direct_ support there is for the
>>>> zero-change proposal. This will help me decide what I need to do about
>>>> my change proposals. If you believe that the elements are fine, as is,
>>>> and no change is necessary, can you please respond to this email?
>>>> Needless to say, if you support any of my change proposals, please
>>>> respond in the other email thread.
>>> As I just said on another thread[1], I'd like to discourage the use of
>>> this
>>> mailing list for expressing sentiments of +1.  Instead, I would encourage
>>> everybody to review all proposals and decide which ones they would object
>>> to, identify with as much precision as possible the reasons why they
>>> would
>>> object to those proposals, and (if at all possible) identify what changes
>>> could be made to those proposals which would result in a proposal that
>>> they
>>> could support.
>>> Note that in the above I said "this mailing list".  There are plenty of
>>> other venues for doing what Shelley suggests: create a wiki page, use
>>> www-archive, IRC, twitter, email, phone, meetups, whatever.
>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1287.html
>> I was hoping to get responses such as those you've asked for.
> Cool.  Then we are on the same side.  And since you are seeking such
> responses, it is only fair that you be prepared to provide similar
> information.
> Shelley: what, specifically, could be changed in any of the counter
> proposals which would result in a new proposal that you could support?
>> I can't believe that people dislike ALL of the change proposals,
>> equally. I think that the fact that the co-chairs grouped these from
>> the beginning has left them grouped, regardless of what people think
>> about the individual items.
>> If some have less resistance than others, then I can figure out if I
>> need to strengthen my change proposals more, or consider dropping a
>> couple in order to focus on the rest.
>> With them grouped, I'm stymied as to action, because these items are
>> not the same. They are very different constructs. I don't understand
>> the same reasons being applied to ALL the items.
> What we need here is new information.  Yes, all of the original proposals
> were submitted at essentially the same time.  Yes, some people saw some
> commonality and inquired if they could group the counter proposals as they
> saw fit.  Yes, the chairs not only acknowledged the presence of such
> questions, we said that we weren't going to constrain the organization of
> the proposals be presented.  Yes, after the counter proposals were produced,
> there were questions asked about how some elements seemed different than
> others.  And, yes there were answers provided.

But the one counter-proposal is all or nothing, Sam. It was
unconscionable that the co-chairs would allow this.

> What we, the co-chairs, are looking for is reaching a point where everybody
> involved feels that they have said everything that needs to be said.  When
> we reach that point it seems likely that some form of survey for objections
> on one or more of these issues will be the next step.  If it turns out that
> changes can be made to any of the existing proposals or counter proposals
> that meets with general approval, then all the better.
> So, once again, Shelley: what, specifically, could be changed in any of the
> counter proposals which would result in a new proposal that you could
> support?  What we need here is new information.

That they be split out into separate counter-proposals, so each issue
can be assessed as an individual item, rather than based on some

I've asked for this, time and again. I still wouldn't support the
counter-proposals, but at least, I hope, that people would then be
encouraged to consider each, individually, before making their

>> Shelley
> - Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 16:30:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:49 UTC