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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:15:54 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0908101415i158cd736x72f2a2645f82d92d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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?


What happens if the poll indicates support for only publishing Manu's
draft, but not Ian's? Does that mean that effectively we are
indicating that we want to discontinue Ian's draft with Ian as editor
and instead use Manu's draft with Manu as editor? Or are we expecting
Ian to pick up Manu's draft?

If the former, is that something Manu is willing to do?

If the latter, at what disgression does Ian have to remove the
warnings as they have to be removed at some point I would imagine (at
latest when going into candidate recommendation?)

Or is the answer something altogether different given that this is
just a poll and not a formal vote?

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 21:16:54 UTC

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