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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 07:07:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4A76C50C.20500@intertwingly.net>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>, 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>
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Let me recap.  I originally proposed that we simply publish Ian's 
>> draft.  That attracted 5 objections.  One is out of scope.  Two 
>> recommended actions that are not viable at this time.  One was 
>> resolved to the originator's satisfaction.  Each day, I showed slow 
>> but steady progress towards this goal.
>>
>> That leaves one objection that has been partially satisfied.
>>
>> Despite the objection being contrary to my recommendation, I do not 
>> intend to simply overrule the objection by fiat.  As they say in some 
>> Westerns, "first we have a fair trail, then we hang him"(*)
>>
>> I believe that it is important in the course of having a fair trail to 
>> let the plaintiff make their case in their own words.  You and I and 
>> others have suggested things, but in the final analysis it is up to 
>> John to make his case.  If a poll is required, then it is up to John 
>> to propose what the poll will be.
> 
> I do believe that objections _do_ need to be resolved, but I do not 
> believe that objections should postpone publishing a WD: a WD explicitly 
> notes that it may not enjoy consensus from the WG.
> 
> As I see it, we definitely should work towards resolving all objections 
> by LC; I don't think we should allow objections to postpone publishing a 
> WD, as if we do that, I doubt we will manage to meet the heartbeat 
> requirement.

I could operate by fiat ("benevolent dictator ring any bells anyone?") 
and simply declare that Ian's draft be published.  Or John's for that 
matter.  But that wouldn't be right.

I was fully prepared to simply have a poll: here are two documents, 
which one should be published at this time?  And give people a week to 
respond.  And go with the one that got 50.01% of those responding 
indicating that that document was the one.

I believe that at this time, John has said everything that needs to be 
said.  It is not clear to me what more data is requested from him.  I 
would be willing to leave the poll open for an entire week.  But after 
over a week of discussion, we have people complaining about not having 
enough time to review 5 small changes that John has made.

During that same period of time, Ian has made over 60 commits.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 11:08:41 GMT

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