W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: edits to the draft should reflect the consensus of the WG

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:29:06 -0500
Message-Id: <456D9B5A-BDAB-463C-9D23-B6B9511DEC5B@robburns.com>
To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>

I guess, I should cc the list so that the entire WG knows what is  
being discussed in the archives.

Take care,

original message-
On Aug 16, 2007, at 1:22 AM, Robert Burns wrote:
> Hi Edward,
> On Aug 16, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
>>> I think the point you're missing here Lachlan is that the editor is
>>> supposed to make edits to the draft that reflect the consensus of  
>>> the
>>> WG. That's not what's happening Instead these edits to do not at all
>>> reflect consensus of the WG: they reflect the views of just the  
>>> editor.
>> Hmm.
>> I sent this email to Jason the other day; perhaps it bears on this
>> issue for you as welll.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Aug/0007.html
> I have no idea how you draw the conclusions you're drawing.. Care  
> to explain?  Over email, Ian promised:
> Thus, as I have said before, I would only volunteer as editor if:
>  * the specification developed by the HTML WG is exactly the same  
> as the
>    specification developed by the WHATWG, and
>  * the specification is written using an iterative model where the
>    editors listen to all the feedback, update the spec to take this
>    feedback into account, and repeat the process, and
>  * only major objections that cannot be resolved even after the  
> iterative
>    model has been thoroughly applied get escalated to group-wide
>    consensus-based voting.
> What I object to is precisely that he's not adhering to those  
> promises. He is not listening to feedback at all. He ignores  
> feedback, fails to read feedback in good faith and merrily edits  
> the draft without taking the feedback into account.
> There is nothing in the recent edits regarding @alt and @usemap  
> that has listened to any of the feedback, Instead he spends his  
> time compiling lists and scoring the WGs participants[1]. How does  
> that fit with the process Ian promised to adhere to?
> Take care,
> Rob

[1]: <http://junkyard.damowmow.com/290>
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 06:29:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC