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

Re: evidence of harm

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:56:00 +0900
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090625155556.GC30372@sideshowbarker>
Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, 2009-06-25 09:40 -0500:

[continuing my previous response...]

>  "Editing" implies work within an existing document, not being yet another 
>  author of yet another piece, which may, or may not, be considered.

I do not think that is the case for this group. The term does not
in fact imply working within an existing document. And as far as
whether or not other documents will receive consideration, Sam in
fact has authority as the co-chair of the group to ensure that the
will be considered. And I have a responsibility also to make sure
that they do get considered, if that's the course the leadership
of the group chooses to take.

>  Editing implies that there is a sense of cooperation between
>  editors

Cooperation among editors is ideal, but it's not absolute
necessary, and the term does not in fact imply cooperation in this
case, as far as I can see.

> --not the actuality, which is control by one person, with what
> seems little more than token oversight by the W3C.

There is quite a bit more going on here than token oversight. No
working group, and no individual in any working group, can move a
document forward through the W3C publications process past Public
Working Draft with just token oversight over the decisions that
have been made about the contents of that document.

As far as the W3C publications process goes, we are still at a
very early stage in the lifecycle of this document, at the Public
Working Draft, where the main purpose of publishing a document is
to help ensure that it gets wider public review (not just review
within the group).

Sam has outlined a plan that makes it possible for any member of
the group to edit a draft document, put it out for discussion by
the group, and to also move it forward to Public Working Draft
status. I think it's fair to say that he favors a policy that does
not require us to have consensus on such documents before agreeing
to move the forward to Public WD status. I favor such a policy
also, and I have the means to help make sure things actually
happen that way, if that's the course the leadership of the group
and the members of the group want to take.

>  The HTML5 specification could 
>  contain sections to which Ian strongly disagrees; the W3C HTML WG does, in 
>  fact, have the capability to effect real change in the HTML 5 document. In 
>  fact, I would be very happy to be wrong. But I've not _seen_ evidence that I 
>  am wrong, and until such time that I do, I will not participate in what I 
>  consider to be nothing more than a sham:

It's not a sham. I think what it comes down to is that you can
either choose to trust that Sam means what he says he means, and
that I do, or you can choose not it. I genuinely respect your
choice not to participate, if that is what you do end up deciding.
But I cannot respect the implication that others who do choose to
participate would just be participating in a sham.

>  seemingly being an "editor", when whatever I do would be
>  considered nothing more than noise (and humor generating noise
>  at that).

I at least do not consider your current or potential participation
to be nothing more than noise.

And as far as (ab)uses humor in regard to discussions that take
place about HTML5, I don't think you can conclude that any humor
that might directed at you or anybody else means that you are
being ignored or dismissed or that the people actively involved in
the work of the group are not taking your concerns (or those of
others) seriously.

(About me personally: I use humor myself in discussions about
HTML5. In fact, I use it a lot, but on public discussions (and
publicly archived discussions) and in private discussions. Others
I work with do too. But it would be a mistake to conclude it means
I am not taking the work very seriously, and am not seriously
invested in helping to make sure it is a success.)

>  No, I will work within the Formal Objection process, following the procedure 
>  as outlined by the W3C [3].

I respect whatever choice you decide to make in that regard. But I
can't completely agree with your rationale for making that choice.


Michael(tm) Smith
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 15:56:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:33 UTC