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

Re: sections removed, current and ongoing

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:27:10 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1001080927m7597bcf6v4f62ae35abfc22a1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> These bugs do get copied to the HTML WG email list, if I remember
>>> correctly, so none of these changes should have been a surprise. Well,
>>> perhaps details, if people assumed Ian wouldn't agree with the bug
>>> request.
>>
>> Bugs do not get copied to the list by default; it only receives emails
>> when certain fields are changed.
>
> They do get copied to *a* list, just not this one.
>
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/thread.html

Ah, yet another list to follow, except this one has an even lower
signal-to-noise ratio.  ;_;

> A lightly filtered list (non-editorial only) can be found here:
>
> http://twitter.com/WHATWG
>
> I assume that what this comes down to is a subjective assessment about what
> is "major".  That's where everybody on this list can help.  If you see
> something that is major, please note it on this list (as Shelley recently
> did for this particular item).

Can I just go ahead and say that all of the section-removal bugs are
"major"?  I'm pretty sure I highly disagree with all of them.  I
*really* don't want to cause the WG all the additional work that
Issues do, because it's completely unnecessary and rather silly.  I'd
just like some discussion before any of them get accepted with nothing
more than the OP's assertions being heard.  If we had had a normal
discussion and Hixie still said "Eh, I'm cutting <details>.", I would
have been fine with it.  I'd still disagree with the decision, but I'd
at least know that it had been properly considered, which I do not
feel is happening right now.

I just don't like the mailing list being completely bypassed by the
tracking database.  Discussion should happen here, not in the bug
tracker.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 17:27:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC