Sam Ruby wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I'm finding it difficult to perceive "can live with" and "can't live
with" as anything other than a form of vote. The statement itself isn't
an argument, and frankly whether someone can or can't live with
something doesn't matter in the least. What matters is just the quality
of the argument put forth and it should make no difference whether
someone explicitly says they can or can't live with something. It's
also pointless to get people to say it explicitly since it's much easier
to evaluate someone's position based on the arguments they put forth,
than relying on an explicit binary statement.
If we were to allow people to equate "can't live with" with "I'd prefer
something else", we do end up there. So I propose that we don't do that.
It bothers me greatly that this conversation appears to have petered out.
This working group has a lot of talented and opinionated people. Ones
that will toss out an objection at the drop of a hat. This was widely
(and rightfully, I might add) parodied at today's conference call.
And traditionally the chairs of this working group have gone out of
their way to interpret a simple "no" on a survey[1] or somebody saying
the words "I object" as a formal objection.
That above combination does not lead to any place good.
Lachy, I do hope that what we have here is a semantic problem in that we
both are using similar words to mean quite different things[2].
I *do* intend to require those who wish to push forward a forward
objection to "cite technical arguments and propose changes that would
remove the Formal Objection."[3]
I *do* intend to allow editors freedom to pick from the available
alternatives as they see fit. While I would encourage them to listen to
all input (both pro and con) and to base their decisions on this input,
that is not something I wish to interpose myself in.
Is this unclear?
If not, even if you have reservations, can we agree to see if this is
workable?
If this is more than a semantic error, I claim that if this is as
unworkable as you appear to think it is, we should be able to quickly
see that.
Deal?
- Sam Ruby.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0146.html
[2] http://xrl.us/bedfxh
[3] http://xrl.us/bedfxs
