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

Re: HTML5-warnings - minimum supporters requirement met

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:18:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4A7FAD9A.2050402@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
>>        ----------------- Pick one --------------------------
>>    [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft to address the heartbeat requirement.
>>    [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft with Manu's warning language to
>>        address the heartbeat requirement.
>>    [ ] Publish both Ian's latest draft and Manu's latest warning
>>        language draft.
> 
> If it turns out that a poll is necessary, I'm concerned that a poll with
> three options could end up with a plurality.

That's a good point - just offered it as a possible compromise if there
was an issue with how polls can be setup via the W3C polling software.

One additional request, as I'm attempting to find a compromise that
addresses Maciej's "controversial issues" definition concerns:

Could we have a text input area that allows voters to list which warning
text they would like to have removed or modified from the HTML5-warnings
spec if it is published?

This would allow people to vote for HTML5-warnings, excluding specific
warning text (noting that the section is not controversial). Pasting
URLs or fragment IDs, prefixed with the word "REMOVE:" would be enough.
Any warning that has 25% of the vote would be removed/modified. I can
tally the results by hand and post the (verifiable) results to the
mailing list, if necessary.

If 25% seems like too low/high of a bar to reach, some other percentage
that seems reasonable will do -- looking for guidance on this number.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 05:18:56 GMT

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