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 18:37:29 -0400
Message-ID: <4A19CC29.8000904@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 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.
> 
> I agree with Maciej. Last decision that was taken with regards to the
> design principles was to do more than just publish it as a WD. If
> we're going to reverse that decision then that requires more than just
> a discussion on a conference call. Especially since this WG is
> chartered to allow asynchronous participation in all decisions.

I dislike having to respond to a strawman.  I especially dislike having 
to do it twice.

I'll respond to you the same way I responded to Maciej[1]:

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.

> Further, I think it would be a great loss to loose having the design
> principles to back our work. We have been able to avoid a lot of rat
> holes and unproductive conversations thanks to them.

I'll respond to you the same way I responded to Maciej:

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.

> I guess Ian can always continue to follow the design principles for
> the document he is producing while others can choose not to. However I
> think that would be a loss for those specs.

Independent of whether these design principles are being followed, ample 
opportunity will be provided to the Working Group to assess consensus on 
the results.

> / Jonas

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0294.html
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 22:38:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC