Hi guys,
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:03:26 +0200, Doug Schepers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martijn wrote:
2007/6/27, Doug Schepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I could not agree more with this sentiment. I know of no reason this
issue should have been reopened, since there was no new evidence. But
ultimately, it is not that important, which makes it all the more
frustrating that it was reopened and effort was wasted.
Yeah, this is a "me too".
However, I do think this is important.
So basically, I'm just really unhappy about this.
Just posting a new proposal, without even mentioning about what was
decided before, it's just very frustrating to me :(
I feel being treated very unfairly :(
I understand and sympathize with your frustration. But I'd ask you to
consider the relative weight of the importance of the naming convention.
In my view, it is far more important that this API be specified and
implemented (and made available to authors) than to continue the debate
about names.
I am sorry. I suspect as chair that I failed to ensure that the issues
were sufficiently clearly marked.
It seemed to me that while the meeting which decided on names had reached
a consensus among those present, we failed to establish a consensus on
naming amongst the group at large. I therefore asked Lachy to try and do
so. And I think he did an admirable job - as shown by the fact that for
the first time I have not seen someone say "we really cannot live with
these names and will block consensus if necessary". Whether they are
perfect is, IMHO, immaterial, since the chances of that happening and of
us still thinking they were perfect in 10 years time are vanshingly close
to zero. That they are generally acceptable is what matters so we can
publish a spec and people can get on with implementing and using it.
...
If anything, I contend that reopening an issue that was closed by the
group had the potential to block progress, and that the editor is
fortunate that others have not sought to press the issue. That some
people were not happy with the naming convention decided by the group
was insufficient cause to reopen the issue, since an equal number of
people are now unhappy with the new names; it's worth saying that
consensus is not the same as unanimity, but is a process whereby people
decide the manner in which they will cooperate toward a mutually
beneficial end.
I held the issue open because I had been told by people that the
resolution we had reached for was in fact unacceptable. I am very happy
(and grateful to all concerned) that so far the new proposal hasn't
suffered that problem, and hopeful that this will allow us to proceed -
less than six months (!) after all the substantive issues seem to have
been settled...
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com
