- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:32:12 +0100
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: "'T.V Raman'" <raman@google.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>, "'David Ezell'" <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>, <cmsmcq@w3.org>, <holstege@mathling.com>, <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>, <ian@w3.org>, <shh@us.ibm.com>
> I strongly believe that this is a question that should have > been settled, and indeed was settled, when the working group > was chartered with the above goals... > > To change the goals of an effort like this now is not only > counter to the letter of the W3C process, it's hugely > disruptive both in this particular case and as a precedent. > There's no way that people like me are going to devote years > to working in the W3C, toward agreed goals, if at the end we > say: never mind, those weren't the goals. Actually, if I believed that the original goals were no longer relevant today, I would have no hesitation in saying that the project should be abandoned or the goals changed. The value of the work we have done is measured by its value to users, not by the efforts we have expended. I have several times in my career recommended scrapping of a project in which I have invested considerable effort over a period of years because I thought the original goals were no longer relevant or were unlikely to be achieved. But in this case, I think the original goals are still extremely relevant, and that the work we have done will achieve them. Michael Kay Saxonica
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 08:33:07 UTC