Re: details on report of PFWG HTML5 actions & issues status

Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:
> 
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>  > The co-chairs (Chris Wilson and myself) made a decision to publish based
>  > on our assessment of the input received by the working group over a
>  > period of several weeks and a number of phone calls.  If you have input
>  > on any or all of Chris's explicit request on the mailing list, the
>  > minutes from the phone calls, or the issue in the tracker itself could
>  > have been more clear on the matter, I would be glad to hear it.  Or if
>  > you know of some input that the chairs did not give proper attention to,
>  > please cite it.
> 
> It is not possible to know if there was any "input [to which] the chairs
> did not give proper attention", since we (the WG) do not have access to
> the workings of the co-Chairmen's minds.  My point (and I do not wish
> to drag this matter out) is that I believe that, following the cessation
> of active discussion on 30th ult., the co-Chairmen should have reported
> to the WG that they had considered all points raised so far, and that,
> in their opinion, there were no outstanding objections to publication.
> They should then have gone on to say that they proposed publishing the
> current draft of the specification as a WD on <date> and asking if there
> were any objections to this.  This simply did not occur, and the 
> publication
> therefore took place without the informed consent of this WG.

Access to the co-Chair's minds is not required.  The chairs are 
available via e-mail on this very list, on IRC intermittently (and 
guaranteed at least once a week), and via phone.  The minutes from the 
phone conversations are made available in raw form immediately via the 
IRC minutes, and in a cleaned up form shortly thereafter.

Re "This simply did not occur", I continue to believe that the agenda 
and Chris's clarification were clear requests for objections:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0289.html

> Philip TAYLOR

- Sam Ruby