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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 16:14:28 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0905241614u757dca50hc7f6057b1583b6f3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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]:

Sorry, I suspect I misunderstood you then. I took

"The general perception I got from the call was that this document was
useful as a historical guide, and as a Working Draft, and it should
remain as such as some people find it helpful (others may not), but
should not progress any further."

as that there was a desire to just keep the design document as an
informal document that people may or may not follow at their will. I
apologize if this was the wrong interpretation?

I further took "But as you were not present on the call, no decision
was made.  David Singer volunteered to get with you." as that the
reason that no decision was taken on the call was the fact that maciej
was not present, and had he been present a decision might have been
taken. Again, I'm sorry if I read too much into what you were saying.

> 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.

I definitely understood that no decision was made. Instead I thought
that we were in the process of starting a discussion about weather to
officially adopt the design principles or not and I wanted to express
my viewpoint as part of that discussion.


>> 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.

Agreed.

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 23:15:28 UTC

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