xml-dev - Re: W3C's 'Moral Majesty'

[Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> This seems to be turning into "why T.B-L is bad for the WWW"
> which is completely against the point I was trying to put forward:
> personally, I think the idea of someone (or body) at the top whose
> primary job is to unblock logjams is good (indeed, my countries
> political constitution is based on this, very successfully).

The idea in ours is that in a deadlock vote, one man or woman, 
can break a tie.  Otherwise, the executive branch can propose 
and lobby for legislation and acts as top cop.   It cannot 
thwart majority rule.  The person of the Tim-BL is not relevant 
except insofar as it preserves the role of one person who 
can thwart majority rule.  This is not a good role to assume 
regardless of who assumes it.  So, this is not a "Tim is bad" 
but a "Tim can change his mind about his decisions with regards to 
his role".  That is a fair thing to ask.  

Look at the role of Washington in the US.  When the time came to 
pass the office of the presidency, it was done without 
force.  It was considered a marvel at the time and a credit 
to his capacity as a leader.  That is moral majesty.

> In other words, the criticisms of W3C closed procedures etc
> are the natural result of the pretense of standards-making.

Yes. 

len


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)