- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:30:59 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > 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. > Same counter-proposal? There's been so many lately, I can't remember what was what. Never mind, I just wasn't aware that we did have a precedent in this regard. > 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. > That is very good to know. Thank you. I no longer have any concerns about the number or make up of the counter-proposals. >> Shelley > > - Sam Ruby > Shelley >
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:31:32 UTC