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

Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:08:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4A806221.1080800@intertwingly.net>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Manu Sporny wrote:
> 
> What I am proposing would give us broader community feedback by the end
> of the week. If consensus finds in favor of Ian's draft and not
> HTML5-warnings, that will be a clear sign that we need to have the
> meta-discussion on selection criteria for what is and isn't controversial.

In order to get that process moving, can I ask that you address the "So 
what I would like to ask is that if there is anybody who disagrees with 
any of the following, please say so, and indicate why." portion of the 
following email:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0429.html

At the present time, we have Manu objecting to your current draft, at 
least as it is presently worded:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0431.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0437.html

And we have Lachy objecting to releasing two almost identical documents 
would be a PR nightmare:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0447.html

  - - -

So, I am asking you to explicitly state that you object to publishing 
Ian's current draft for purposes of meeting the group's heartbeat 
requirements, while simultaneously recommending that you do not do so.

We had five objections.  I ruled on three,  One was resolved between 
Leif and Anne.  One was resolved between Ian and John with the 
assistance of Maciej.

I believe that the draft you are working on has the potential to be very 
useful, if nothing else, I believe that it has identified that there are 
one ore more issues that Julian believes should be open but aren't 
currently present on the issues tracking list.  This has already 
resulted in positive results:

   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76

I further believe that, once the draft and the issues list are 
reconciled, having a Working Draft that reflects these issues would be a 
positive and useful thing, and while I understand that not everybody 
agrees with this, it is clear that such a notion has enough support to 
merit a poll.

The course of action I would like to take at this time is to state that 
all objections to publishing Ian's current Editor's Draft as a simple 
Working Draft (i.e., as incomplete and without consensus) have been 
resolved and to direct Mike to work with Ian and Anne on making that happen.

If you object to me doing so, say so, and say why, and you will have 
your poll.

Note: while quarterly is identified as a minimum heartbeat requirement, 
I see nothing that indicates that we can't pump out Working Drafts more 
frequently than that.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 18:09:13 GMT

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