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

[DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 6 - on to implementation

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:46:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4A807926.7050103@intertwingly.net>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> At the present time, we are down to one option!  I base that on John 
> withdrawing his draft based on a recent change Ian made:
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.html
> 
> I would like to give everybody an who supported stopping the publication 
> of Ian's current Editors Draft as a Working Group Draft but had not 
> stepped forward with a draft of their own simply because John's was out 
> there an *extremely limited* opportunity to do so at this time.
> 
> Specifically, if you have an alternate draft to propose, and do so by 
> Sunday midnight EDT, I will consider how to deal with such (hint: for 
> starters, I will be looking for at least two independent supporters 
> before we consume additional Working Group time on this issue). 
> Otherwise, I will simply ask that Ian's draft be published.

Two people indicated a willingness to do so, Julian and Manu.  First Julian:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0332.html

As near as I can tell, he got no support for that, so I am not planning 
to proceed with that at this time.  Then Manu:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0411.html

Manu was quickly able to demonstrate adequate support:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0426.html

In one last attempt to take the easy way out, I wanted to ensure that 
every option had at least one person who objected to it, and had no such 
luck:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0431.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0447.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0490.html

I think it is fair to say that there are sentiments ranging from "simply 
publish both" to "I don't care which one, but do anything but publish 
both".  As such, I would suggest three yes/no questions:

   - - -

1) Do you support publishing the following Editor's draft (i.e., without 
the additional warnings) as a Working Draft at this time:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html

2) Do you support publishing the following Editor's draft (i.e., with 
additional warnings) as a Working Draft at this time:

   http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings.html

3) Do you support the idea of publishing both draft a draft with 
additional warnings and a draft without warnings, should both have 
sufficient support?

  - - -

Just so it is clear, there is no abstain option on the third question, 
but I will treat saying no to first two as abstaining on both.

If the majority of people say that they are OK with publishing both 
documents, then any document which has 50% or more support will be 
published, after abstentions are discounted.

If the majority of people say that they would rather that we not publish 
these two documents concurrently, then the one with the most votes will 
be the one published.

And to further illustrate, given the links above, I would expect the 
following votes:

   Maciej: Yes, No, Yes (he only objected to #2)
   Lachy:  Yes, No, No  (he objected to #2 and #3)
   Manu:   No, Yes, Yes (he only objected to #1)

Of course, each are welcome to change their minds.

I hope with all of the discussion and with this description, and 
examples, the options and process are crystal clear.  If there is 
anything unclear at all, I ask that people speak up at this time.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 19:47:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC