Re: Invited expert agreement

19.12.2014, 14:46, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>:
> On 12/19/2014 05:46 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>> š+ rigo@
>> š- singer@, jeff@
>>
>> šHi Sam,
>>
>> šI am seriously uncomfortable with a document that looks for all the world like the real thing, with no clues that it is a modified version, being put out there in public. Putting up text for discussion seems reasonable, but this page as published on your site does not. I'm hoping that you will change it to be clear that it is a proposal, before taking the discussion much further afield.
>
> First, you seem to be responding to a note that I never received.

Hmm. Good thing I replied here then...

> I don't know where it was sent, but I can't find it in the web archives:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/author.html

Odd. I sent it in reply to the thread.

> Second, patches welcome. šSeriously.

Do I send you an edited version, or is there some better way?

> I state my concerns. šThere is little progress. šYou suggest that I take
> a stab at it, and I do, and at which point there starts to be some progress.
>
> Now you state your concerns. šGood. šThat's how we make progress. šI
> suggest that you draft whatever it will take to address those concerns.

OK. Seems fair.

> ššIn return, I'll promise to be responsive.

I already took that as an implicit promise, and one I believe you generally offer.

> I also invite Rigo, Wendy, or whomever to draft their own proposal. šIf
> that results in something that I will support and is more likely to gain
> consensus, I'll retire my draft, most likely with a 410 Gone HTTP status
> response.

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 12:29:48 UTC