Profile

Just a belated point of clarification: when I said "It's a question of documenting the broad industry consensus behind the specification," I didn't mean to imply that the companies we work for endorse the 1.2 spec. Nevertheless, we do work for those companies, we do the kind of technical work this ...

I agree Paul. I must have lost track of the context. Now I think we're resolved on a single list including every TC member who's paying enough attention to ask to be included. Personally, sometimes I think I further our business here better by doing less, not more. And as Patience counseled ...

I agree in principle, Paul - though I would need more discussion of whether other roles besides Editor/Authors should be acknowledged, and how we phrase the acknowledgement so as not to obscure the fact that everyone who at least spoke up at some point in the development of this of that feature actively ...

Sorry I touched a nerve, Bruce, with my mention of potentially "dissident" members. I was fishing, mystified as to why Paul wanted to be left off the list. --Dana

After looking more into this issue after today's meeting, I think our focus may have been a little off. Ideally the "list of people who participated in the development of the specification" should include all members of the TC. It's not a question of acknowledging the level of individual effort. ...