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

Re: the MathML comments

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:25:48 -0500
Message-ID: <4AF80A4C.6080001@intertwingly.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Web Archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:05:44 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 
> wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> -public-html
>>> +www-archive
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:52:29 -0800, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> So, on one hand, I have zero sympathy for any active participant in 
>>>> the working group who chose to attend a session on MathML who may 
>>>> claim to have been unaware of this work or making any statement 
>>>> other than the fact that while they personally did not have a chance 
>>>> to review it, sufficient others have for this to have been sent on 
>>>> behalf of the working group.
>>> When the session was announced I got the impression it was about 
>>> MathML integration (also based on a short discussion earlier with 
>>> another Math WG member) and since I know something about that I 
>>> attended. I had no idea MathML feedback would be discussed.
>> Did I suggest that you shouldn't have attended?
> I do not think the "zero sympathy" is fair given the situation.

Whee!  This is fun.  Not.

Let's start at the beginning.  Did you or did you not miss the repeated 
and public statements that there would be a review going on, statements 
that were made in October, made on public-html, the low traffic 
public-html-wg-announce, and on the weekly telecon itself and more than 
three weeks before TPAC?  I will note that annevk2 was listed as a 
participant in the 15 October call.

Drilling down on just one part of my message is itself unfair. 
Confusion happened, it is a reality.  Nobody acted in bad faith.  How we 
proceed from here is the only relevant question.

I don't want to discourage people from providing feedback, which is 
something that the statements that were recorded in the context of the 
TPAC had the significant potential of doing.

I do want to set the expectation that if we provide ample notice and 
solicit feedback that we will proceed with the feedback that is given. 
This expectation will be important as we proceed with our own spec.

We have a number of individuals and groups which provided bug reports 
during the course of TPAC who previously had not done so.  A number of 
these were due to the setting of that expectation.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 12:26:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:36 UTC