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

[ACTION-28] Binding Timetable for HTML5 FPWD

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:07:36 +0100
Message-ID: <474F2A18.9080708@lachy.id.au>
To: public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Per the discussion on IRC between DanC and Hixie (transcript below) [1], 
DanC expects to complete Action 28 [2] by coming up with a list of 
requirements and binding timetable for the publication of HTML5.

<Hixie> DanC: ok, but in that case i think i would have to insist that
         we have a clear list of requirements and a detailed and binding
         timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD, since
         otherwise i have no way of determining whether progress is being
         made, which makes it hard for me to defend my continued
         participation in the w3c with my management
<DanC>  insisting on it won't magically create it.
<Hixie> indeed, i was hoping you might create it
<Hixie> since only you are able to do so
<Hixie> i am willing to help as much as humanly possible
<DanC>  the only listsI can think of set an unrealisitically high bar;
         e.g. yes votes from 80% of the participating W3C member orgs and
         no formal objections.
<DanC>  it's not unfairly preferring
<Hixie> if the requirements are unrealistically high, that would be
         something i would like to know, rather than just have us fail to
         meet the goals without knowing what the goals are
<DanC>  the goal is consensus
<Hixie> danc: as in, everyone in the working group agreeing or
         abstaining or not voting? or something else?
<DanC>  yes, the W3C definition of consensus is "everyone in the working
         group agreeing or abstaining or not voting", plus lots of actual
         yes votes
<DanC>  the goal is alwas consensus; sometimes we settle for less
<DanC>  always
<Hixie> so all it would take to perpetually block the working group's
         work is for me to juts always vote no? that's certainly an
         interesting situation given the size of this working group. is
         that really what you are saying?
<DanC>  no; noone has veto power
<Hixie> so when do we settle for less? is there some defined way you
         determine when we should proceed without consensus?
<Hixie> truly, i just want to know what we need to do to publish the
         current spec as a FPWD, and when we can do so
<DanC>  we settle for less at the chair's discretion, per our charter
         and W3C process.
<Hixie> ok, but the chair's discretion so far has seemed arbitrary and
         biased by a minority. as noted above, if this is to continue, i
         really think we need a clear list of requirements and a detailed
         and binding timetable for publication of the current spec as a
         FPWD.
<DanC>  I think Dec 2007 is a good goal, though I give it less than even
         odds. 6 months is too long. 3 months is what I think we can aim
         for and hit or beat. Q1 2008.
<Hixie> can we have that as a binding timetable in writing?
<DanC>  maybe
<DanC>  I haven't finished my internal discussion
<Hixie> any idea when that might happen? i don't mean to push, but it's
         been 8 months so far, so if 6 months is too long as you say,
         we've already delayed too long.
<DanC>  my internal discussion should finish in 1 to 3 weeks
<DanC>  I think you do mean to push, and I appreciate it. :)
<Hixie> DanC: ok, i don't mean to seem to be pushing unreasonably :-)
<Hixie> DanC: so in 1 to 3 weeks we can get a detailed and binding
         timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD?
<DanC>  yes, I expect so.
<Hixie> ok
<Hixie> what should i do if you won't give a a detailed and binding
         timetable for publication of the current spec as a FPWD in 3
         weeks?
...
<Hixie> DanC: if i can possibly be so impolite as to ask again... what
         should i do if you won't give a a detailed and binding timetable
         for publication of the current spec as a FPWD in 3 weeks?
<DanC>  if I don't deliver on ACTION-28 in 1 to 3 weeks, Hixie , you
         should expect a darned good explanation. And If I don't have
         one, you should feel justified in taking extreme measures.
<Hixie> ACTION-28 doesn't require you to come up with a binding
         timetable
<DanC>  if I don't deliver on ACTION-28 in 1 to 3 weeks by coming up
         with a binding timetable, Hixie , you should expect a darned
         good explanation. And If I don't have one, you should feel
         justified in taking extreme measures.
<Hixie> ok
<Hixie> thank you
         * Hixie marks his calendar
<DanC>  likewise.

[1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20071129#l-1026
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/28

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 21:07:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:51 UTC