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

Re: My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:39:01 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>, judy@w3c.org, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-id: <5D07B848-BEBE-4993-9FC2-23DB58505532@apple.com>
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>

On Aug 2, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Murray Maloney wrote:

> At 03:55 PM 8/2/2009 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> I truly and honestly believe that the vote is between "obsolete"  
>> and "deprecated"(*), yet we have no less than three people saying  
>> that what appears to me to be a very clear difference is something  
>> that they would need more information on in order to express an  
>> opinion.
> I can't speak for anyone else, but my vote is not between whether  
> @summary belongs
> in one undefined class or another. But it seems that the chair has  
> positioned us so that we
> are going to vote between one document and another. That is truly  
> unfortunate.
> As a vote between publishing one document vs another, the polity  
> becomes extremely difficult.
> Honestly, I am flabbergasted by what is passing as process here.  
> Everybody needs to take
> a step back and recognize that this has now entered into theater of  
> the absurd. Forking HTML
> is the wrong thing to do, on the face of it. Please put an end to  
> this insanity.

I agree that the current publication decision is entering the realm of  
the absurd. Process is ad-hoc, options are not clearly communicated,  
and the rules seem to change from day to day.

Sam's original vision of multiple drafts was that anyone could produce  
a draft and ask to have it published. But now it seems that if you  
complain long enough, you can ask for a vote for a draft edited by  
someone else to be changed, tied to a poll about publishing a new  
Working Draft to meet the heartbeat requirement. This is after we  
tried (and failed) to have a poll on the actual substantive issue,  
separate from WD publication, to decisively resolve the issue. Not  
only that, but this is all over spec text that the proponent for  
change describes as not a technical issue, but a PR issue.

It's hard to participate in the Working Group effectively when the  
ground rules are constantly changing.

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 00:39:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC