W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2012

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-203 media-descriptions by Amicable Resolution

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:41 -0700
Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'Edward O'Connor' <eoconnor@apple.com>, 'Paul Cotton' <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-id: <7A1246E1-22B9-4097-9920-3D832508AA22@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>

Hi John,

First, let me remind you of the Discussion Guidelines: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines>. If you continue to express yourself in an abrasive manner, even when asked not to, a possible next consequence is a time-out from posting on the list. Abusive language and conspiracy theories have no place in the HTML WG.

Second, the Chairs are often lenient about timelines when we believe it is in the bests interests of the group (rather than facing future reopen requests of Formal Objections), and when we either have material in hand or the person requesting an extension has a track record of delivering to a deadline. A recent example is issue-31c on meta generator, where we granted a reopen request that came in far after the deadline, because we found the new information compelling and believed it was better to resolve the matter now than to drag it beyond LC2. I hope you will understand that in that case leniency on the deadline was justified. For reasons like this, the Decision Policy is clear that the Chairs may grant reasonable extensions to deadlines. And I hope you can accept that granting extensions is also intended in good faith even when it does not benefit your "side" of a given dispute.

Regards,
Maciej


On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:41 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:	
> <
>> I object to this characterization.  It is expressed in a manner that we
>> will not tolerate on this list:
>> 
>> On 06/27/2012 03:16 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>>> 
>>> This Apple employee further states that he has no idea on how or what
>> he
>>> will be hoping to propose as a counter proposal
> 
> Ted wrote:
> "Unfortunately I don't have a concrete and complete change proposal at
> this time"
> 
> 
>> (and in fact is
>> asking if
>>> anyone else can help him), 
> 
> Ted wrote:
> (I'd also be happy to have help on such a change proposal if others in
> the WG agree with me that the change proposed in [1] is undesirable.)
> 
> 
>> has not engaged in any dialog around this
>> topic
>>> prior to yesterday, 
> 
> A review of http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/203 "Related Emails"
> shows Ted's name appearing twice, both times as scribe from the weekly
> telecons. No other email or correspondence on this topic that I can find
> (but happy to be proven wrong).
> 
> 
>> and now needs 2 additional weeks to bring forward
>> an
>>> Alternative Change Proposal
> 
> June 26 to July 10 = 14 days/2 weeks
> 
> 
>> so that we can then go through the
>> additional
>>> steps of thrust, {delay} and parry (a.k.a. "online discussion") in an
>> effort
>>> to avoid a WBS survey; 
> 
> Do the Chairs plan on going directly to a WBS survey on July 11th? If no,
> are there current plans and future date to take Issue 203 to WBS Survey?
> After the July 10th delivery of the Alternate Change proposal, what *are*
> the next steps?
> 
> 
>> and after that protracted effort is engaged
>> upon, we
>>> still have a possibility of a WBS Survey.
> 
> ***************
> 
> That you take exception to my bluntness I get; I'm blunt, and often
> abrassive. I have not stated any falsehood or untruth, but simply restated
> what appears to have taken place from my perspective. 
> 
> I (we?) still have no idea *why* Ted has objected to this CP (I have my
> suspicions) - only the reason why it took him 6 days past the deadline to do
> so; and I (we?) still have no idea why the Chairs have chosen to entertain
> this objection, based on zero public rationale. I understand giving any
> particular actor enough time to get their work done, but since nobody
> outside of the Chairs have any idea what in fact that work is or will look
> like, there is an appalling lack of transparency going on in a public
> Working Group.
> 
> Since everyone seems to be stating their objections today, I object to
> *that*.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Ted has been asked, by the chairs, to help out on a number of issues;
>> and when he has done so the results are generally positive.  Because we
>> have prioritized his workload, it made sense to give some latitude on
>> an issue that we did not include in that prioritization.
> 
> To be perfectly clear, this is not a direct criticism of Ted (with whom I
> have worked with directly on at least 2 other outstanding Issues). I respect
> Ted, and his efforts towards progress and consensus (and have told him that
> directly more than once), while still recognizing that the massive amount of
> current deliverables he is committed to is indeed creating a log-jam within
> this WG. (And there is no denying that many of those delayed Issues are
> indeed Accessibility related: 194, 199, 201, and 204 - and now Issue 203)
> 
> No Sam, my frustration is with the Chairs, and the way in which you now seem
> to be playing fast and loose with your own stated rules.  If John Foliot
> were to write to the Working Group and Chairs today and stated that I
> objected to the Amicable Resolution of "ISSUE-198 innerHTML-patent-policy"
> on the basis that I was previously too busy to respond on time (and/but with
> no other explanation), do you or anyone else reading this note today think I
> would even get the time of day? 
> 
> What makes this Media/Accessibility related issue any different? Had Ted
> been previously involved in any of the Media Accessibility work over the
> past 2.5 years then perhaps there might be some justification there, but
> outside of one teleconference call about 3 weeks ago (where we had an
> amicable and productive call around Issue 204), and some F-2-F discussion at
> the latest meetings in Mountain View (again around Issue 204) Ted has been
> absent any discussion around this topic or media accessibility in general.
> 
> So can you, or any of the Chairs, explain why this particular issue and CP
> is due such special treatment today? Or will it remain a decision taken
> behind closed doors? 
> 
> JF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 22:08:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:32 UTC