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

Re: The Canvas 2D API split

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:41:39 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001110841q43008738i9ced8b9ee085dc98@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Then I will enter an Issue, because I see two proposals, the editor
>>> did not take into consideration the original proposed split, and I
>>> don't agree with the wording of the editor's proposed change.
>>
>> I don't think that would be an appropriate use of the issue tracker. If you
>> object to the wording, there are ways to do that. You can file a bug against
>> the split out draft about the wording, or you can enter a resolvable
>> objection when it is proposed for FPWD.
>>
>> The fact that someone else made another draft is only relevant if someone
>> wants to put it forward for FPWD. So far no one has done so.
>>
>> Please do not enter tracker issues that aren't called for by the process.
>>
>
> We have to disagree, then.
>
> Right now, I see two proposals, one that was created before we had a
> procedure in place. The whole purpose of the procedure was to manage
> disagreement, and allow for multiple proposals or counter-proposals.
>
> If the initial proposal creators drop their proposal, we're still
> faced with a new change proposal: one put forth by Ian. He has to go
> through this process the same as the rest of the team. He is not above
> the procedures of this group, don't you agree?
>
> The Issue Tracker is the only way to track an issue, assign a
> responsibility, and ensure something has not fallen through the
> cracks, like the initial 2D Canvas split did.
>
> How else are we supposed to track assignments, responsibilities, and
> due dates, Maciej?
>
> Shelley
>

That was NOT appropriate for you to close the issue. This was an abuse
of your position as co-chair.

You acted just as unilaterally as Ian did. What good to have this
group, this procedure, any of this, if you and Ian continue acting
unilaterally.

The Issue didn't mean that the problem would have to go through the
entire Change Procedure. It was a way to track the problem, and with
two change proposals, there is a problem. and make sure it's resolved
in a timely, and transparent, manner.

The other two co-chairs may have agreed with you. Or not. Or they may
have had an alternative approach that would ensure the issue is
tracked without having to go through the Issue Tracker.

I did, and do, have a legitimate concern, which you brushed aside,
without any consideration. You have allowed your personal biases to
lead you to abuse your position.

Shelley
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 16:42:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT