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

Re: Splitting HTML from the HTML DOM (was Re: Renamed topic: focus and length of HTML5)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:17:11 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912071217j438dfa90u2c80a8502ddac61f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>> I think another area of clarification is that if someone does a
>> counter-proposal, the person who submitted the proposal shouldn't have
>> to "address" the issues in the counter-proposal.
>> We could end up in a never ending spiral if we follow this
>> proposal/counter-proposal/counter-counter--- well, you get the drift.
>> We need to find one set of rules, and if we change them, we need to
>> grandfather older proposals in. For fairness if no other reason.
>> People putting out suggestions, and carefully written proposals
>> shouldn't have to jump through an ever changing set of hoops. We're
>> all here to try and help, not cause problems.
> I'm concerned about the opposite problem: a perception that "you get one
> shot at it, at which point somebody can make a counter proposal after having
> seen every argument you have made, and you get no shot at rebutting".
> Put another way, and applied to the situation at hand: if Manu and/or others
> don't wish to update the current change proposal, simply say so, and we will
> go with what we have got now.  No hoops, completely fair, but no opportunity
> to address the points that have been brought up in response to the proposal.
> Personally, I think Maciej provided a lot of value by identifying points
> that might merit revisiting.  And, to be fair, he did so on both the
> original proposal and counter-proposal.
>> Shelley
> - Sam Ruby

True, Manu could just say he'll stand by what he has.

But can you see the spiraling effect of this? Look at our emails --
never ending emails will then transform into never ending change and
counter-change proposals.

Suggestion: One proposal, one version of each counter-proposal, or
alternative proposal, one email thread debating the formal
submissions, where authors of the proposal and counter-proposal(s) can
respond. In fact, one formal discussion thread, introduced by the
chairs who provide a link to both, and a timeline for discussion. When
decisions are made, both the proposals and the associated formal
discussion thread could be used to make a decision (or call for a

Could this be both a fair approach, and actually have an end point?

Or am I quashing discussions again.

Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 20:17:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC