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

Re: Moratorium on the spec-splitting discussion

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:02:40 -0500
Message-ID: <49806580.1030400@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> I would be happy to see a structured discussion led by the chairs
>>
>> Let's test that assertion.
>>
>> The structured discussion that I would like to propose is that we 
>> produce concrete specs, distribute those specs widely, identify 
>> specific issues with those specs, and block progress of any and all 
>> such drafts to the Proposed Recommendation stage until those issues 
>> are disposed of one way or another.
> 
> I'd like to ask for a clarification.

Thanks!

> Is this meant to imply that we 
> would not block progress to any stage earlier than Proposed 
> Recommendation, or do we still take a group decision at those other 
> transitions?

No.  There are transitions that require consensus, and there are 
transitions that do not.

I believe that previous attempts to apply standards of consensus to 
transitions which are clearly documented as not requiring such, while 
well intentioned, were misguided.

> In other words, are you proposing that advancement to FPWD, 
> LC and CR should be essentially automatic?

No.

> Or was your "to" meant to be a "towards"?

I meant "to" to mean that specific transition.  I also meant "to" in a 
non-exclusive manner.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 14:03:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT