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

Re: minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:06:05 -0400
Message-ID: <4A19625D.9040809@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On May 24, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>>
>> I agree that it was a lopsided vote.
>>
>> I agree that there was an intent to publish as a Note, but disagree 
>> with any implication that it constituted a commitment or a decision to 
>> ultimately publish as a Note, in particular I disagree that it was a 
>> decision that would need to be reversed.
>>
>> I disagree that the conference call is "informal", but I agree that 
>> further discussion is warranted.
> 
> Let me put it this way. I think if we want to make a decision as a WG 
> not to publish any further Working Drafts, and not to aim to publish as 
> a Note, I think that decision should be taken as seriously as the 
> decision to publish in the first place.
> 
> I think discussion on a single conference call, where abandoning the 
> Design Principles document was not even an agenda item (though other 
> Design Principles discussion was), and when there had been no mailing 
> list discussion of doing so, does not constitute an adequate process for 
> assessing consensus.

No assertion was made that consensus was determined on that conference 
call.  If you want to take exception to what actually was said or done, 
feel free to do so.

> After writing the above, I checked what the W3C Process had to say about 
> stopping work on a document. I was surprised to learn that, apparently, 
> the  W3C Process does not allow stopping work without publishing either 
> as a Recommendation or a Working Group Note: 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#tr-end>. These are 
> the only allowed end states, and the proper way to abandon a document is 
> to publish it as a Note. This means that any time we agree to publish a 
> Working Draft, we are committing to at least publishing a WG Note at 
> some point, though of course publishing as a Note does not imply any 
> endorsement.

Fair enough.  I once thought there was the possibility that a few small 
changes might improve the chances that consensus might form.  If that 
isn't the case, then I would suggest that those who have opposing views 
be presented with the opportunity to prepare brief, factual statements 
about the areas of disagreements.  The intent would be that such 
statements would be included in the front matter of the Note.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 15:06:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT