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

Re: Why I don't attend the weekly teleconference (Was: Input on the agenda)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:46:56 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270906231946s253977e5n6f4f7776d3bd4e6b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Michael(tm) Smith<mike@w3.org> wrote:
> Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, 2009-06-23 19:03 -0500:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> Unlike you and Sam, I'm not paid to waste my time writing material
>> that I know will be rejected.
>
> As far as this working group goes, I think it's clear that any
> material you might write is not going to be rejected. After he
> came on as co-chair of the group, Sam outlined a mechanism for
> having additional/alternative HTML-WG-member-edited drafts move
> forward for discussion within the group and publication by the
> group. I know Chris Wilson supports that, and I'd think it'd be
> safe to say the majority of members of this group also support it.
>
>> While you're a gatekeeper I won't play the gam.
>
> Hixie is not the gatekeeper for decisions about what gets
> published by this group.
>
>> I will spend my time writing, but it will be in the nature of
>> formal objections, which cannot be ignored.
>
> IMHO, the most useful kind of formal objections are those that
> take the form of a concrete proposal -- a document with (as Sam as
> described it), "camera-ready spec text".

Thanks for the information. I checked out the procedure for formal
objections, and noted the important of ensuring precision,
specifically "should cite technical arguments and propose changes that
would remove the Formal Objection."

>
> And I would think that at the point in the publication cycle where
> resolving formal objections is necessary (document transitions --
> e.g., from WD to LC, or LC to CR), the arbitrator responsible for
> resolving those is very likely to value having concrete proposals
> or alternative drafts to consult when evaluating them.
>

Understood, thanks.

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 02:47:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:38 GMT