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

Re: Statement why the Polyglot doc should be informative

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:17:08 -0500
Message-ID: <50B4D974.3020009@intertwingly.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>, Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
On 11/09/2012 10:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Whatever might have been said or what you might
>> have thought you heard,
>
> I don’t appreciate discrediting my listening comprehension en passant.

I wasn't present, but the meeting minutes do not reflect any statement 
that work on the Rationale was to be done *instead* of following the 
documented process:

http://www.w3.org/2012/11/02-html-wg-minutes.html#item12

Perhaps it wasn't captured.  Perhaps all the necessary people weren't in 
the room.  In any case, it is a clear policy of this working group that 
decisions are not made off-list.

>> I will once again state that the process is quite
>> clear that the next step after the editors initial decision is indeed a bug
>> report:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#note-vs-rec
>
> It seems hard to work with this group if a participant can’t trust the
> word of two out of three chairs that steps of a procedure have been
> waived. I should have followed my instinct to do everything according
> to the written procedure anyway:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19923

At this point, we have a Formal Objection from you and a response from 
the editor.  If you would like to have the Working Group proceed with a 
preference poll, please (a) withdraw your Formal Objection (without 
prejudice), and (b) mark the above bug as a Tracker Issue.

In addition, please indicate if you wish for us to proceed with your 
original rationale or if you intend to revise it:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/0006.html

Cameron: you indicated that you intended to provide a rationale for why 
the Polyglot document should be normative.  Is this still your intent? 
If so, when do you plan to have this complete?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 15:17:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC