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

Where people have discussions (was Re: The History of <aside> for sidebars)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:20:20 -0400
Cc: 'Lachlan Hunt' <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, 'Jonas Sicking' <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, 'James Graham' <jgraham@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <E259BE75-A252-4475-8243-36E2D3280054@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>

This one is definitely with co-Chair hat on...

On Sep 4, 2009, at 4:08 PM, John Foliot wrote:

>
>
> If ever there was a damning indictment of WHAT WG's use of the IRC
> back-channel to 'make decisions' without due consultation, here it is.
>
> It is now water long-gone under the bridge, but even recent discussion
> (http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090904#l-322 ) shows that  
> this
> lesson has not been learned.
>
> IF YOU HAVE PROPOSALS - POST THEM PUBLICLY (and at both your club  
> and W3C
> mailing lists) - play by your own rules!

Just to make it clear to everyone:

We prefer people to make technical proposals in official Working Group  
channels, such as the public-html mailing list or w3c bugzilla.  
However, people are free to discuss technical issues regarding HTML5  
wherever they wish, even if that conversation involves the editor. And  
even if that discussion is on a logged IRC channel, on twitter, in  
blog comments, or on a private invite-only mailing list. It's  
healthier if a lot of that discussion happens here, but you don't have  
to stop thinking about HTML5 in other media.

If anyone has a technical disagreement with something in the spec, or  
a question about why something works a certain way, please do voice  
it. If you have a complaint about where people hold their  
conversations, then I would ask you to please hold your fire.

Now, it's possible for conversation to retreat so much into fragmented  
spaces that it becomes impossible to follow the work and participate  
meaningfully. If that actually happens in a concrete case, please  
point it out to the chairs. However, I don't think that is happening  
on the current round of discussing <aside> and the other structural  
elements. I see lots of healthy technical discussion on the list. So  
let's focus more on that constructive technical discussion and less on  
process issues.

If anyone wants to discuss this topic further, please follow up  
privately or on www-archive.

Thanks,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 23:21:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:07 UTC