W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2013


From: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 19:35:03 +0000
Message-ID: <SNT002-W9512777BA8A244C678C7C6C52B0@phx.gbl>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Sam Ruby,

On this matter, we disagree.

Additionally, your first warning about the topicality of the ITU WCIT summit could be interpreted in such a way that the topicality of some topics pertaining to discussion of cryptography-related technologies, including in the context of which Working Groups would best steward discussions about cryptography-related technologies, in the opinion of the participants, could then be unclear.

Each participant might have an opinion about whether elements of the US government, the US military, the NSA, are interested in cryptography-related technologies, and each participant might have an opinion about whether they would want discussions about cryptography-related technologies, for example the Encrypted Media Extensions, occurring in the same Working Groups or discussion rooms as where discussions about education-related technologies are to occur, e.g. digital textbooks.

Your first warning may have established an unclear precedent, if precedentiality was intended, with regard to substantive and topical discussion towards reaching consensus about which Working Groups would best steward cryptography-related technologies.

I disagree about your second warning.  My rationale for disagreeing is that when a participant in a forum hyperlinks to a document, it should be possible to discuss the content of the hyperlinked to document in the forum including to refer participants in the forum and the participant who linked to a document to one or more other forums to discuss content in the hyperlinked to document.

It is unclear which processes, including discussion, are available and appropriate when we disagree, for instance about your second warning, and it is my opinion that our disagreements are productive to discuss.  With regard to discussing the first warning, clarity about how to best broach and to discuss the co-occurence of cryptography-related and education-related technology discussions in the HTML Working Group can be achieved through discussion.

It could be that each topic is a separate matter and that precedentiality with regard to topicality is not necessarily procedural.  It could be that the topicality of the co-occurrence of cryptography-related and education-related discussions in W3C Working Groups or discussion rooms, including discussion about the US military and the NSA and other parties interested in cryptography, cannot be inferred from the topicality of the ITU WCIT summit topic.

Also, I am reading the Art of Consensus (http://www.w3.org/2008/10/GuideBook.html) and would be interested in any other pertinent literature.

Kind regards,

Adam Sobieski 		 	   		  
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 19:37:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:40 UTC