W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2008

Re: discretion & the issue tracker (was Re: discretion in adding issues)

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:00:26 +0100
Message-ID: <484829BA.5040301@cam.ac.uk>
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>

Robert J Burns wrote:

> I understand the purpose of the issue tracker. I understand what Mike 
> wrote now on the HTML WG home page. What I still don't understand — and 
> what I was referring to about Mike having trouble communicating — is how 
> any of the issues I asked Gregory to add to the issue tracker do not 
> meet the criteria Mike has laid out.

Well, the basic criteria that have been set out for issues to go in the tracker 
are (in roughly the order I think they should logically be applied):

* Already under some notable degree of significant discussion within the group
* Clearly important to the group as a whole
* High-priority

Taking Issue 47 (bookmark-and-clipping-support) as an example, it's clear that 
there had been no significant discussion of the issue before it was added to the 
tracker. Therefore it fails the lowest bar for inclusion. I could apply similar 
analysis to the other issues you raised, but I trust that it is now obvious to 
you why they do not meet the criteria above.

> If you or Mike or whoever doesn't 
> agree with the issues I raised, then by all means raise specific 
> objections on the HTML WG list. But please stop making these pseudo 
> procedural arguments here when it is clear you have no leg to stand on.

I am happy to accept that it may not have been entirely clear what was 
appropriate for the issue tracker when you filed these issues. I think it has 
now been made clear and it should be obvious that they do not meet the 
requirements irrespective of my, or anyone else's, opinion on the merit of the 
proposals themselves.

>>> While I think everyone in the WG welcomes your enthusiasm — it’s 
>>> great  to have a staff contact take such a close interest in the 
>>> daily  activities of the WG — you're clearly overstepping your bounds 
>>> in  suggesting the WG wants you to delete these issues from the 
>>> issue- tracker. What the WG wants from you is to dutifully serve as a 
>>> staff  contact to the W3C, to serve as a liaison between the WG and 
>>> the W3C  and to help us all understand the procedures within which 
>>> we're  supposed to work.
>>
>> Robert, I really think it is inappropriate for you to presume to speak 
>> for the whole working group when you are not communicating an actual 
>> working group decision.
> 
> I never said I spoke for the whole WG. Again why don't you state 
> specifically what you disagree with rather than claiming I'm speaking 
> for the entire WG when I'm clearly not in any position to do so. 

I'm not sure how to interpret a sentence that starts " What the WG wants from 
you is [...]" other than as you presuming to know, and be communicating, the 
desires of the working group as a whole. If, in fact, you only intended to 
communicate a personal opinion, I suggest that you choose your wording more 
carefully in the future.

-- 
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
  -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 18:01:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:18 GMT