W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'Michael\(tm\) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <lhs@malform.no>
Message-ID: <006b01ca1267$70df3c10$529db430$@edu>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> I'm not saying John's request should be delayed, just that it should
> be decoupled from publishing a new Working Draft. Personally I think
> it is the request to couple these decisions that is a procedural game.

This is not a game.  (A game is dismissively making @summary conforming
but obsolete at the same time, with no input from affected parties,
knowing full well that it remains a contentious issue.)

It *is* an insistence on W3C protocol and procedure whilst drafting a W3C
Working Draft.  It *is* an assertion that the editor has overstepped his
authority per W3C protocols by treating the PFWG request with disrespect,
by not recognizing that there is an open action item around this issue
that will likely go to vote, and by his stepping into an area that is
clearly chartered by the W3C to another working group.  I have left the
door very widely open to correct these issues, at which point I will
withdraw all objections. If they cannot be addressed within the WHAT WG
version of the draft document, then I will produce to the chairs, as
requested, an alternative version to be then voted upon.  Not a game, but
certainly a resolve.

> 
> I don't believe I've done or said anything to impede John in pursuing
> changes to Ian's draft, or alternately, to creating his own draft. 

This is true

> In
> fact, I've actually attempted to broker compromise changes on
> summary="" which I'd hoped to be satisfactory to all parties.

I have re-read your notes on this matter - I see no compromise position or
solution offered (but maybe I missed something - if I did I am sorry for
that).  I did read something whereby you sought to defend the current
draft as being, in your opinion, less egregious then earlier versions, but
I do not see an alternative to my requests or WHAT WG's current position
that could be considered a compromise.

> Clearly
> John has not found the changes satisfactory, or even softened his
> stance. 

I've not seen any proposed changes to consider.  I am open to discussion,
but remain steadfast in my resolve for W3C protocol, and to have authoring
language that contradicts WCAG 2 removed from the Working Draft. It is one
persons opinion, it is harmful and contradictory to WCAG 2, and it is
(IMHO) inappropriate in a technical document.

> But it is he and not I who is trying to mix up his preferences
> with a publication decision.

I am simply reacting to the requests of Sam, and proceeding as he has
instructed.  I am tired of 'lazy consensus' to a process that is, to many,
fundamentally flawed, and so I am pressing the issue now - because if not
now, when? The version after this? Two versions from now?  This next
Working Draft must start to reflect W3C process and protocol plain and
simple, and if Ian cannot make changes to his draft that reflects today's
reality, and respects WAI's role within W3C, then I will have an
alternative draft to vote on by Monday. I hardly see this as a major delay
tactic, but rather a watershed moment that was due to arrive at some point
- the failure to abide by protocols is hampering progress more than my
small effort at this time.
 
JF
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 05:18:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT