- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:08:11 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:02:24 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 04.02.2011 15:54, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:08:45 +0100, Julian Reschke >> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> On 04.02.2011 11:32, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>> endorses that or endorses your proposal having a later issue remove >>>> all >>>> that text seems disingenuous. >>> >>> Not necessarily, if the WG decides that. >> >> What if the editor simply agrees with him? > > If he agrees, and makes that change, and people complain, then he'll be > asked to revert the change (that's my understanding about changes that > reduce the consensus). Right, this is exactly my problem. Not everyone likes the status quo, but you oppose radically changing the status quo in favor of a more minor change and only allow voting on the minor change. The "consensus" might end up being that minor change or no change. And then of course a radical change introduced later will undermine that "consensus", except consensus was never there to begin with. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 15:08:47 UTC