- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:25:58 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:25, Julian Reschke wrote: > Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: >> On 17 Nov 2008, at 23:10, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Furthermore, the checklist you suggest seems to be written with >>> the intent of discouraging anybody coming up. >> What do you think the process should be? >> ... > > Funny enough it's in the paragraph you did not quote: > > JR> The working group should make a decision whether a split is > feasible and a good thing to do, and then should select one or > multiple editors. But "go ahead, waste your time, until we'll tell > you that you're not a second Ian after all" will not fly. Ah, I was meaning process in terms of more detail than what you propose (if this is wrong, do correct me): 1) WG makes decision on whether split is a good idea and feasible, and 2) Select editors. Should we have something like the following: 1) WG makes decision on whether split is a good idea and feasible, 2) Select editors from volunteers (note we currently have got nowhere with this so far), 3) Let them edit document, 4) Review editing, and 5) Remove from HTML 5. Note that 4) happens implicitly, and the "you're not a second Ian after all" state could happen even if this wasn't listed. I think all of us would like the best spec we could get, and if there's someone better willing to edit a document, it should be considered. The question, as I see it, is when something is removed from HTML 5. Removing something then re-adding it is a fair amount of work (because of xrefs, etc.). -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 20:26:38 UTC