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 07:31:55 -0500
Message-Id: <A32897E3-2F6C-45BD-B2FB-B5EC33EBD784@robburns.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>

Hi Ian,

On Aug 16, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Robert Burns wrote:
>> 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]: <http://junkyard.damowmow.com/290>
> I hope you're not suggesting that what I do to amuse myself in my free
> time is any of the working group's concern.

No, that wasn't how I meant that at all. I raised that only as  
another example, that you focus on these meaningless statistics  
rather than discussing issues that would help improve the draft. I  
guess we can now use the fruits of your free-time work as 'evidence'  
for adding or eliminating features.

> Incidentally I updated the data above to take into account the  
> amount of
> time the participants actually spent from the time of the first e- 
> mail to
> the time of their last e-mail. It includes an 'e-mail per day'  
> average --
> how many e-mails each participant caused to be sent to the list  
> either by
> writing it or by triggering a reply. You may find the data  
> illuminating:
>    http://junkyard.damowmow.com/291

As I said before, statistics aren't really my thing.  I will say  
though that I joined the group at the end of April/Beginning of May  
time frame and have been conscientiously reading emails and other  
relevant material since then. So, maybe my day one should be adjusted.

Take care,
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 12:32:09 UTC

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