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 03:16:12 -0500
Message-Id: <706AC468-A943-40FA-B8A3-7A713C422275@robburns.com>
Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>


On Aug 16, 2007, at 1:57 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I think there is a need for explanation.
>
> Robert Burns (16 août 2007 - 15:29) :
>>> 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?
>
> 1. Editing a specification is a huge and difficult work. Shooting  
> on the main editor without having backup plans for editing will not  
> solve many things.

I'm not shooting on the main editor, I'm simply asking that the edits  
reflect the hard work of this groups members. That to me suggests  
starting with issue that have percolated to the wiki. Alternatively,  
the editor could push us to get topics onto the wiki if he wants to  
work on something else. There just seems to be a serious disjoint  
between the work going on in the WG, and the edits made to the draft.

>
> 2. Ian Hickson is collecting issues in different email folders. I  
> would rather prefer that his inbox be public,
> 	BUT I can't let say things which are wrong.
> He's editing the specification when he hits one of his folder on a  
> specific issue. Sometimes his folder will contain a lot of emails  
> on one particular issue. Then when he has finished to read it and  
> edit, he usually replies in one shot to all emails.
>
> He's also taking into account the research and accumulated  
> *collective* knowledge put on the wiki.
>
> Our discussions on alt and usemap are not in the specification for  
> a very simple reason. He doesn't have reached yet this specific  
> folder. A few months ago he was dealing with two years old feedback.

However, Ian Hickson is editing the @alt section of the draft. That's  
exactly the issue I'm trying to voice here. Make substantive changes  
to the draft like that should occur after a review of those email  
folders, not before. So once he reaches that specific folder than  
begin editing. If he's on a different folder then edit that section.  
If there's a section he wants to edit that doesn't have suitable  
feedback, the post here or to the chair requesting that the topic be  
taken up by the WG. That doesn't seem burdensome to me.

> What you could argue for is more visibility. For example today I  
> proposed to Hixie on IRC, that on the table of content outline of  
> the specification. Either on a separate page or on the html  
> document. He puts flag to indicate the maturity level of the edits  
> and/or the planned.
>
> [...]

I think those suggestions would be helpful too.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 08:16:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC