Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: sam th <email@example.com>
- To: Ann Navarro <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:28:48 -0500 (CDT)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Ann Navarro wrote:
> At 08:44 AM 10/19/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> >We can't do it *all* on open lists. All that people
> >such as Simon St Laurent have asked for is the
> >technical reasoning behind decisions.
> Except that this ignores (or forgets) that all decisions aren't necessarily
> based on the best technical reasoning. It may have been politics,
> stonewalling, or finally caving in to some sort of consensus with a
> minority opinion. Rare are issues that are unanimous.
> Would those who want reasons behind decisions accept "the best solution the
> group could come to consensus on"? I can only see follow-up as to what the
> other proposals were and why or why not something was/wasn't accepted, and
> that's where you get into "Well, Foo, Inc's rep refused this", etc.
<quote src"A Few Good Men">
TC: I want the truth!
JN: You can't handle the truth!
So, what you are saying is that the reason that the 'rest of us' don't get
to see behind the curtain is that we couldn't handle the knowledge? You
can't tell us what your reasons are, because then you would have to admit
to being a club to help the members sell more software?
I cannot imagine a worse reason to keep decisions behind closed doors than
because those decisions could not bear the light of day.
[NB: I don't think that this is how the W3C produces specs. Otherwise, it
would seem extremely unlikely that they would have done as well as they
have. Also, I have found the W3C reps on this list and elsewhere to be
much more respectable people than that.]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----