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

Re: Issues 89 through 97

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:35:35 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001170635q111f6d40ld3c5a48e37934afa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
I'd like a small extension, and have you set the date for March 1st.
Considering that the response to the bugs took over two months for at
least one, and the number of change proposals I have to write, I don't
think my request is unreasonable.

If we're concerned about having to wait for a counter-proposal, folks
who want to write zero-change proposals should also be given the same
deadline. Though the Change Process does allow for multiple proposals,
including zero-edit proposals, there's nothing in the Process about
allowing  an additional month for folks to write one. In fact, the
Change Process states all proposals are due within the same time
period, and then discussion will occur. I'm not sure why we started
this policy of giving people time to write formal counter-proposals
(which are change proposals, after all), and the one month extended
deadline.

We can edit our proposals based on the discussion, but I can find
nothing in the procedure giving those who are writing a counter
argument an additional month and the ability to write a change
proposal beyond the original deadline.

So to be fair, I'm asking that the same deadline be extended for all
parties writing change proposals for Issues 89-92, and Issue 95.

Thanks

Shelley


On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>> I've decided to not ask for an extension.
>>
>> You can put me down to write the change proposals for the items.
>
> Thanks for the update. Should I put you down with the standard one-month deadline (let's say a month from tomorrow, so February 17th)? I'll assume so unless I hear otherwise.
>
>  - Maciej
>
>>
>> Shelley
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The chairs will confer privately and get back to you.
>>>
>>>  - Maciej
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>
>>>> The chairs have asked for a volunteer to write the change proposals
>>>> for some of these items. Though the items were entered in a staggered
>>>> fashion, over a period of close to three months, they were all acted
>>>> upon in a matter of a couple of days. This makes it difficult to set
>>>> aside enough time to do a proper job on the change proposals,
>>>> regardless of other commitments on my time.
>>>>
>>>> I originally started posting the bugs in October, expecting action on
>>>> most in November and December, when I wasn't approaching a book
>>>> deadline. Unfortunately, they were all acted upon in January. This is,
>>>> unfortunately, the worst time for this to happen for me, as I can't
>>>> afford distractions right now. As other book authors in this group can
>>>> attest, the weeks before the draft is due are the most stressful, and
>>>> the ones that can least afford distractions.
>>>>
>>>> I hate leaving these open, though, and seemingly unsupported. I also
>>>> realize there are others interested in writing counter-proposals, but
>>>> they're waiting on someone volunteering to write the initial proposal.
>>>> I don't want to leave folks waiting on me, as I had to wait on others.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to propose to the co-chairs and the group the following
>>>> schedule for change proposals for these issues. The dates more or less
>>>> match the intervals for the bugs, except for Issue 94, which will
>>>> require the most extensive work:
>>>>
>>>> Issue 95 regarding the Hidden attribute - I can have a change proposal
>>>> by February 15
>>>>
>>>> Issue 89 regarding the idioms section - I can have a chance proposal
>>>> by February 22
>>>>
>>>> Issue 90 regarding redefining figure - I can have potentially two
>>>> change proposals for this one, by March 5
>>>>
>>>> Issue 91 regarding clean up of aside - I can have a change proposal
>>>> for this one March 12
>>>>
>>>> Issue 92 regarding clean up of table - I can have a change proposal
>>>> for this one March 15
>>>>
>>>> This is the first set of issues, and all would fall before the March
>>>> 14th deadline, if I held on volunteering until just before the Feb
>>>> 14th deadline
>>>>
>>>> The next set would follow:
>>>>
>>>> Issue 93 regarding deleting the details element - I can have a change
>>>> proposal for this one March 22
>>>>
>>>> Issue 96 regarding deleting the progress element -- change proposal March
>>>> 29th
>>>>
>>>> Issue 97 regarding deleting the meter element -- change proposal April 5th
>>>>
>>>> Lastly the big one:
>>>>
>>>> Issue 94, splitting Web Applications Core - Change proposal by April 23
>>>>
>>>> I think that's all of them. This would also stagger the items so that
>>>> they're not hitting the group all at once. If you want longer
>>>> intervals between items, I can certainly push the dates out.
>>>>
>>>> I think my request is reasonable, considering others have been granted
>>>> extensions when they've needed the time. I also think it's fair,
>>>> considering many of these were held for weeks, only to have a quick
>>>> response of WONTFIX assigned.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless, I need to hear something from the chairs on this. I ended
>>>> up holding for weeks for a response to these bugs. I don't want to
>>>> have to be put on hold again, only to be told to rush my work in the
>>>> end.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Shelley
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 14:36:08 GMT

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