- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:30:05 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:12:02 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> There are options other than those two, for example, the process that our >> charter describes, or asking whether anyone can find a better >> solution, or >> asking for reasoning and objective research to back up each proposal and >> picking the option that has the most compelling arguments. >> >> I'm not arguing for any particular model here, merely agreeing with Henri >> about the risks posed by the "can live with" design model and other >> compromise-by-committee design models. > > Sam said on IRC that "can live with" or "cannot live with" still means > you have to back up your opinion. Also, that if you options A and B, and > everyone live with either, the editor will get to decide which of A and > B goes into the specification. To me this seems like effectively the > same model approached from a different angle and is worth a shot. > (Though it could be that I'm missing something.) You don't have to back up your opinion if you "can live with" something. - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 11:30:34 UTC