- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:53:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9898 --- Comment #18 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-06-14 17:53:33 --- (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > (In reply to comment #13) > This was an entirely appropriate, in fact essential, discussion to have. Indeed. Further editing where said to be self-evident. [1] And the <figure> result announcement ended with an encouragment from the co-chairs "to write specific and actionable bug reports on areas where this element is deficient". [2] [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4C0D20A3.3080902@intertwingly.net [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/4C058372.4020307@intertwingly.net > The second clarification I made is that Henri's perceived failure of the > process isn't to do with the Decision process, but the co-chairs application of > the Decision process. Apart from a possible need to adjust the expectations (see above), there is also such a thing as «simply won, easy lost». I agree that a process that is felt "free and fair" and respectful by all, is likely to cause less debate in the aftermath. And thus I agree that the way this process developed, may negatively have affected the how the "winners" experienced their "vicotry" – it didn't become the end station they had hoped. So I would encourage the the co-chairs to make sure that the decision process is taken very seriously, *also* in the cases when the outcome of the process is easy to predict. -- 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 Monday, 14 June 2010 17:53:36 UTC