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: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:36:26 -0500
Message-ID: <4B1D674A.9070802@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
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>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> 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.

The emails are only never ending if people repeat themselves.  Hence, 
Maciej's emphasis[1] on wanting on new arguments.

> 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
> vote).
> 
> Could this be both a fair approach, and actually have an end point?

I believe that the set of new arguments is inherently finite, and I want 
everybody to have an opportunity to express new arguments.

> Or am I quashing discussions again.

The time to quash discussions is when we truly have no new arguments to 
be presented.  I feel that we are near -- but not yet -- at that point.

> Shelley

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0204.html
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 20:37:06 UTC

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