- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:52:18 -0600
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Hi Shelley, > To return to the W3C work, the suggestion has been made in a couple of > emails that we begun discussions about major changes on the email > list. The suggestion sounds reasonable, but there are two problems > with this approach. At one time Shawn was going write a weekly review all the Bugzilla traffic for the previous week and post it to this list. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0217.html > Our change procedure is based on items > beginning as bugs and then going through the issue tracker if the > editor disagrees. Yes. From all I can gather you followed the formal procedure. Step 0. Email is optional. But you CCd the group anyway. > Regardless, none of this matters if we wake up one day and found one > specification, suddenly, split into six, with little care to quality, > or damage caused by the resulting split. Then when it's pointed out > that such split is harmful, the result is reversed, and the bugs that > are supposedly the "cause" of such aberrant actions, dismissed out of > hand. Bugs can't be dismissed out of hand as they can be escalated to issues. http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation > Yet, if these had been managed properly, formally, I bet we would find > this group more in agreement or not--if arguments were allowed to be > heard, if formal change proposals were allowed to be given, if the > HTML5 author didn't act so abruptly, and unilaterally. Arguments still should be allowed to be heard, Shelley. The decision policy procedure is still in place. > I forgot to add that the end result of all this manic activity this > week is I believe the bugs I initially wanted to create as issues, > were mostly rejected, after the rather interesting mechanizations this > week. This does mean that I can now add these as issues, which I > wanted to do in the first place. I don't see why not. Sam, Maciej, Paul, this would be in accordance with the procedure, would it not? Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 19:52:50 UTC