Hello --

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Tobias Reif wrote:

> chad fowler wrote:
>
> > To me, it doesn't make sense to have a static,
> > read-only document when you could have a dynamic
> > document that anyone can contribute to.
>
> Anyone can contribute to the document by discussing the issues @ the
> Wiki and @ ruby-talk.
>
> > In an earlier
> > post, you said that you feared that the Wiki would
> > give the ability for one person to dominate and
> > completely force a single opinion onto the discussion.
> >  A static document that you maintain, *ensures* that
> > this will happen.
>
>
> No. We need to agree on one list of requirements, targets, and priorities.
> If anyone can edit this document to his liking, forth and back, how will
> be be able to present one final agreement?

By seeing what people say, and then working toward a consensus :-)

> "
> I just try to list some main aspects that the majority of the community
> agreed on,
> and insights from implementers and experts.
> Reasons and motivations can be found @, and further discussion can
> take place @ ruby-talk and
>    http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?XMLinRuby
> .
> "
>
> Imagine a W3 spec as a Wiki; it would change every minute, without
> becoming a coherent construct.

But the W3 spec is the result of a process.  No one's saying there
shouldn't be a result -- just not something static while the process
is still going on.

To me it just feels like this is all happening too quickly.  Not that
I'm a big fan of utterly open-ended (timewise) debate... but I've seen
a lot more difference of opinion and priority here than can be
reflected in one document.  Isn't the Wiki format made for exactly the
kind of "whiteboard" discussion that we need?


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav