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

Re: Change Proposals and Counter-Proposals (was Re: Issues 89 through 97)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:49:19 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001182049h3d5c2677x19f7f2e220ec9e81@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If you all think the spec is good, you shouldn't be reluctant to
>>>> provide a rationale for why its good.
>>>
>>> Of course I should be reluctant.  It's time out of my day that I could
>>> be spending more usefully if someone never writes a change proposal
>>> and the issue times out.
>>>
>>
>> People who have to write change proposals also have other work to do.
>
> That's the point.  It means that we only invoke the full weight of
> process when someone is willing to actually spend a non-trivial amount
> of time on an issue.  Allowing an issue raiser to spend a trivial
> amount of effort and force the WG to expend a non-trivial amount is a
> losing proposition that puts us in trouble.  Doing it the other way
> around means that it's more likely issues raised are worthwhile.
>
> It's sort of like innocent until proven guilty, or "the burden of
> proof lies on the accuser".  These are also intended to make it so
> that the instigator has to do as much or more work as the defendant.
> That way the ROI on the instigation must be higher for it to be worth
> it.

Tab, you're talking nonsense, and no, Maciej, do not correct me, because he is.

I just got through listing those who have put through issues and
change proposals recently, and noting that they have all spent a
considerable amount of time in this effort. Far more time, typically
than given by those writing counter-arguments. You insult all of us.

You're talking ROI, as if you're a Havard MBA grad student, pushing a
startup at the Crunchies. There is no 'innocent until proven guilty"
among members of this group. and I'm appalled that you can actually
say that in defense of your view.

An issue is one where there is a disagreement between the editor of
the spec and the person who files the issue. The editor may or may not
provide a rationale with his disagreement. He has not been consistent
with providing a rationale, and even when he does provide one, it
isn't always a good one, or a strong one. But that is where the
argument is supposed to start. If you want to comment about weak
rationales, and too little effort, I suggest you look at several of
the bugs that did end up as issues.

When I write a change proposal, do you know what that's supposed to be
going against? It was given earlier in this thread. The answer is: the
rationale that the editor wrote when he marked the bug WONTFIX. No
other counter-proposal is necessary, and if this goes to a poll, what
will get measured against each other is the editor's rationale and the
change proposal.

Now, if you don't think Ian's rationale is strong enough, you can, if
you wish, provide an additional one. Or not, it's up to you. In which
case, you'll have to accept that the change proposal is going against
the editor's final comment, affixed when he marked the bug, WONTFIX.

Others may want to also provide what they feel is a change proposal in
support of the change, but perhaps with a different change in mind, or
providing what they feel are good arguments for the change. Again,
they don't have to, but if they want to ensure all arguments are
given, they can.

Anyone can provide a change proposal, not just the person submitting
the issue. But if no one else does, then the change proposal will be
measured against the editor's rationale. Now, do you trust in the
rationale that Ian's has given with all of the issues I'm addressing?
Fine, then don't write anything else. If you don't, though, then I
believe there's a deadline of March 1st for change proposals for the
issues. And I believe that one of the co-chairs noted that "waiting
for the change proposal" was not a good reason to extend the change
proposal deadline.

>>> Don't get me wrong; in an ideal world, where every change proposal was
>>> sincere and worthwhile, then it would be nice to receive a full
>>> justification of each part of the spec whenever someone didn't
>>> understand the rationale behind something.  We do not live in an ideal
>>> world, however, and people will sometimes abuse processes out of
>>> stupidity or maliciousness.  Defending against these situations is
>>> worthwhile.
>>>
>>
>> So what you're saying is that my issues are not sincere or worthwhile?
>
> I said nothing of the sort.  Don't take things personally; our
> decision process is shaped to defend us against time-wasting threats
> in general.
>

Then I would think you would embrace the removal of the incorrectly
added counter-proposal step, with its additional month of time.

>> I would have to say, Tab, that you seem quick dismiss other people
>> concerns when they don't agree with yours. But disagreement with you,
>> is not a rationale.
>
> I have not dismissed anyone's concerns off-hand.  I would appreciate
> it if you didn't make disparaging remarks without at least providing
> some evidence.  There is no call for you to attack me personally.
>

Then you might want to consider using less than disparaging terms
about those who are initiating issues, especially since you have no
evidence to back your concerns.

I've done with this discussion. I'll have my change proposals to the
group in time. I am trusting that the co-chairs follow the procedure
they set forth.

> ~TJ
>

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 04:49:52 GMT

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