Re: the MathML comments

On Nov 7, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

>
> So, on one hand, I have zero sympathy for any active participant in  
> the working group who chose to attend a session on MathML who may  
> claim to have been unaware of this work or making any statement  
> other than the fact that while they personally did not have a chance  
> to review it, sufficient others have for this to have been sent on  
> behalf of the working group.
>
> On the other hand, having been posted for the first time on a  
> Wednesday afternoon/evening, and sent on behalf of the HTML WG on a  
> Friday morning is simply not enough time.

In addition to two days being a short time in general, WG members who  
were attending TPAC were likely not fully caught up public-html email  
that was sent during the TPAC week. I have sympathy for the claim of  
being unaware of the contents of the comments because I was myself  
unaware, despite being fully caught up on email right before TPAC. I  
believe the concern of the people in the MathML session was not that  
something untoward happened, but merely that they were unclear on what  
had in fact happened.

>
> Let me be clear here: I don't want this to be a witch hunt: the  
> process was unclear, and that is the fault of the co-chairs.  What  
> is done is done; what I want to know is what changes to the process  
> should we consider going forward.  Guidelines from the ASF may help  
> as a starting point: we require that everybody have had a chance to  
> review the material (which requires public notification and a  
> minimum 72 hour period for review, and generally more if we know  
> that there is a significant holiday or event or any individual  
> indicates in advance a conflict) AND for a minimum of three  
> independent individuals to have done so.
>
> Would a set of rules, perhaps even these ones, have helped in this  
> context?

I think it would have.

Regards,
Maciej