On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Jean-Yves-
Jean-Yves Bitterlich wrote:
We find it unfortunate that past resolutions within the working
group are being invalidated (unless of course there are new
evidences/information that justify this act) in particular because
this behavior leads to rehashing issues instead of moving forward.
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.
The past resolution did not have consensus agreement from at least a
couple of WG members who were not physically present at the meeting
(for example I objected, on the basis that the new name is
excessively long and does not allow for a reasonable single-result
variant). We could say the people who had the time to be at the
meeting should win, but maybe it's worth trying to find a broader
consensus.
In addition, at least some of the proposed names in Lachlan's list
were not considered at the WG meeting where the decision was made,
according to the minutes. cssQuery was definitely not considered, for
example. If we can find a new set of names that can achieve broader
consensus
Regards,
Maciej
