W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-82 (Profile-Disambiguation), was: ISSUE-82 - profile-disambiguation - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:59:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4BBDD341.2080802@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/08/2010 04:38 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 1:33 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 08.04.2010 09:02, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> ...
>>> And here is the diff:
>>> http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4985&to=4986
>>>
>>> Is that an acceptable basis for an amicable resolution?
>>> ...
>>
>> I'm ok with the outcome (so yes, we can close the issue).
>>
>> I'm not particularly happy with the way we got there (no discussion on
>> the mailing list before making the spec change; this makes it smell
>> like a fait accompli).
>
> The Chairs would not move to close the issue without checking whether
> this change was acceptable. But presenting the change in context seemed
> like the most expedient path forward. It was definitely not my intent to
> make this outcome seem a fait accompli, and my apologies if it seemed
> that way in any way. Had this change turned out to be unacceptable, we'd
> certainly have continued with the usual process.

Maciej: while I agree with everything you said, it didn't materially 
respond to Julian's concern.  If there are changes being considered to 
address an issue, they need to be discussed, and that discussion need to 
occur on this list, and that discussion needs to happen in real time.

Julian: this particular change was discussed on the mailing list.  Jonas 
made a suggestion.  You indicated that that approach would be OK with 
you.  Ian made the change requested.  Maciej notified the list that a 
change was about to be made, and then notified the list with a pointer 
to the actual change, and asked if it was acceptable.  All of this 
occurred in real time and on the list.

For us to make forward progress, and given that in many cases /how/ 
something is expressed will affect whether or not there is consensus, it 
makes sense to apply changes that are likely to achieve consensus, and 
to inquire as to whether those changes are acceptable.  Give that Maciej 
asked you specifically whether or not these changes are acceptable, I 
can see no basis for referring to this as a fait accompli.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 13:00:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:07 GMT