W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2010

[Bug 9898] The Decision Policy (as applied) is ineffective at getting closure on ISSUEs

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 01:21:45 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1ONbtR-0007Iy-2C@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9898





--- Comment #5 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-06-13 01:21:44 ---
(In reply to comment #0)

> Now that the Chairs have, on behalf of the WG, made their Decision on some
> ISSUEs, I see almost *nothing but* emails about the subject matter of the
> ISSUEs or about the fallout of the decisions coming from public-html.

Ian explained, the day before you filed this bug, why <figure> still needs
discussion by calling it "even more so" immature than microdata: [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0218

]] 0002 cited above and the microdata decision cited above put forward nearly 
identical arguments, yet reach diametrically opposite conclusions. Both 
microdata and <figure> have been specified, have rationale, have support 
from implementors and developers, have counter-proposals that are also 
specified (in the case of <figure>, HTML4+ARIA, in the case of 
microdata, RDFa), both could be specified in a modular fashion, though 
in both cases doing so results in a fractured language, both are 
intrinsically part of HTML though in both cases an argument could be made 
that it could be turned into a generic vocabulary, both are immature 
(<figure> even more so), and so on. [[

And, also, the chairs, represented by Sam, when the decisions where announced,
encouraged the group to identify problems and file bugs. I therefore feel that
you  turn everything on it head wiht this bug. 

The one thing that almost *all* that took part in the debate after the vote
*did* share was that most of us do not have any alternative spec where we can
place those things that we do not get as we want!!! What many of the
participants *did not* share, was the vote: Most of the accessibility oriented
WG participants were for keeping all these features. Thus, you did not watch a
debate between "

When it comes to "bugs in the process": 

The "keep the elements" crowd found it much too easy to gather around a
anti-Shelley totem. I really wonder why they did not try to behave more nicely
so that they could win over weak souls for their cause that way. It scares me
that this was so unimportant for them. That said, if there had been a way for
the chairs to encourage Shelley to working herself to a compromise with the
group, then I think that would have been very good.  So I don't think the
decission process is wrong per se, but I would like that there were more
encouragement to work for consensus built into it.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 13 June 2010 01:21:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 13 June 2010 01:21:46 GMT