On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
[moved to www-archive]
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I personally would prefer the Work Group spends its time
discussing actual tangible proposals. And to provide everybody
equal opportunity to produce such proposals.
I think anyone is free to make a proposal, but that doesn't mean we
should publish every proposal as a Working Draft.
This is an example of the a discussion that doesn't lead to HTML5
becoming a better spec.
My goal in this particular discussion is to prevent it from becoming a
worse spec, as I see it. Furthermore, I believe I have done more than
most people to make HTML5 a better spec, and on the whole I don't
think discouraging me from participating in mailing list discussions
will make HTML5 a better spec. I know you have done much to make HTML5
a better spec as well, I am not trying to compare credentials, but I
do think it is unfair of you to lecture me on this point.
Nor is it particularly good argument, as it is predicated on a
fallacy:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
I do not see how my statement is an example of a false dilemma.
Indeed, quite the opposite. I am arguing for the middle ground of
giving proposals due consideration, and publishing those that have
undergone sufficient discussion and review, and which seem promising
enough to put on the standards track, as First Public Working Drafts.
Is there anything unreasonable about that?
Has anyone asked Mike to stop editing his document, demanded that he
remove it from W3C space, or refused to engage him on the technical
merits of his approach? To the contrary: many would love to discuss
what he is doing and why it may or may not be the right thing, but you
would like to barrel ahead without having that discussion.
If you think I am making weak arguments, then by all means, show me
why. But so far, you haven't directly engaged any of my substantive
points, instead diverting into this meta-meta-meta-discussion of
whether I should be making them.
The current process disenfranchises many. Perhaps not you, but many.
Have you considered whether you may be disenfranchising those who
disagree with you by forbidding them to even discuss the reasons for
their disagreement, or to propose alternate ways of proceeding and
giving justification for their stance?
Regards,
Maciej
