W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Publishing a new draft

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:58:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4A70478E.7020206@intertwingly.net>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Larry Masinter wrote:
>> I object to the working group ONLY publishing a new draft of
>> the Hixie fork of the HTML5 specification, because the industry
>> and the public are already confused enough about the state of
>> the activities of the W3C HTML working group and the process
>> we are embarking on.
>>
>> My objection would be satisfied if we also simultaneously published
>> Mike Smith's document and/or Manu's fork as First Public Working
>> Drafts along with a clear public explanation of the process we
>> are now engaging.
> 
> Drafts should be published or not based on their own merits.  Holding 
> one draft hostage based on the success of another, or lack thereof, is 
> very much an obstructionist tactic, and I don't think the group, or the 
> chairs, should tolerate such behaviour.

I do consider Larry's objection to be totally without merit.  I also 
believe that Larry has had ample opportunity to actively contribute to 
the other documents that he cited, and the primary reason in my opinion 
that those documents are not ready to be considered at this time is that 
he and others have simply failed to do so.

The three-month heartbeat requirement for publishing is not a 
suggestion.  It's a "must" requirement that the group is expected to 
work in good faith to meet.
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule

The exact wording of the relevant part of the Process document is:

   Each Working Group must publish a new draft of at least one of
   its active technical reports on the W3C technical reports index
   at least once every three months.

I invite Larry to reconsider his objection and focus on contributing 
constructively, but if he declines to do so, I'm confident that a vote 
on Ian's draft will pass overwhelmingly, and I don't relish the thought 
of arguing with Larry over procedural matters.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 12:59:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT