W3C's 'Moral Majesty'

[Len Bullard]

David Megginson wrote:
> 
> [offline]
> 
> Len Bullard writes:
> 
>  > Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>  >
>  > > This seems to be turning into "why T.B-L is bad for the WWW"
>  > > which is completely against the point I was trying to put forward:
>  > > personally, I think the idea of someone (or body) at the top whose
>  > > primary job is to unblock logjams is good (indeed, my countries
>  > > political constitution is based on this, very successfully).
>  >
>  > The idea in ours is that in a deadlock vote, one man or woman,
>  > can break a tie.  Otherwise, the executive branch can propose
>  > and lobby for legislation and acts as top cop.   It cannot
>  > thwart majority rule.
> 
> I don't know a lot about the U.S. constitution, but as I understood
> it, it takes a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto,
> not 50% + 1.
> 
> The problem in the W3C is that even a 100% majority cannot override a
> directorial veto; the benefit is that it's relatively easy for the
> members to vote with their feet.

It was the Senate to which I was referring.  It is true that it requires
a 
2/3 majority to override a presidential veto.

It is not relatively easy to vote with their feet any longer.  Unless 
it is shown to be directly contrary to their business interests and 
enough powerful blocs walk, they are simply eliminated from play.  
Some, such as MCI can.  I think it possible others will if there 
are workable alternatives.  That is why it is imperative for the 
W3C to address the evolution of the leadership to ensure that 
such never becomes necessary.

len



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)