Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals from Sam Ruby on 2010-04-06 (public-html@w3.org from April 2010)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:20:03 -0400
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4BBBA583.7010808@intertwingly.net>

On 04/06/2010 05:10 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
> I'm not going to formally object to this interesting segue in the
> procedure, but I believe that anyone that writes one counter to all is
> doing so with the assumption that the co-chairs and group have already
> made a decision regardless of the strengths of the argument. This
> assumption is more likely trigger me to file a Formal Objection if my
> changes are rejected.

Issues 1 and 2 were decided together.

For these issues (new semantic elements/attributes).  The chairs have 
not made a decision.

> Decisions should be based on sound reasoning, and strong rationales,
> not popularity. I think I remember someone saying that sometime in the
> past.

When a decision is made, it will be based on sound reasoning and strong 
rationales, not based on the number of separate emails.

Decisions will not be based on popularity.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:20:40 UTC