• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin@l...>,simonstl@s...
• Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:48:46 -0500

At 01:45 AM 3/27/01, Martin v. Loewis wrote:

> > As a result, I remain a vocal critic of W3C process and of many of its
> > results - making noise may irritate people, but staying silent only (IMHO)
> > makes things worse.
>
>There is, of course, another alternative: For those results that you
>are interested in, participate in the process of defining the
>recommendations.

But Martin, that's not nearly as much fun as being the public curmudgeon ;)

I actually find it quite sad that a few people that would be of value to 
the process refuse to participate even on an invited expert level because 
they wouldn't accept the confidentiality constraints of participation. A 
loss to both sides, I believe.

Ann
Chief Geek, WebGeek Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com/
Now in print! XHTML By Example
http://www.webgeek.com/books/
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/	

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Web Philosophy
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Web Philosophy
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: Web Philosophy
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Web Philosophy
    • From: Michael Beddow <mbnospam@m...>
  • Re: Web Philosophy
    • From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Web Philosophy
• Next by Date: Re: Web Philosophy
• Previous by thread: RE: Web Philosophy
• Next by thread: Re: Web Philosophy
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread