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 11:52:17 -0500
Message-ID: <4AF848C1.9020607@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Web Archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> Hi Sam,
> 
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Having been present in person in the HTML/MathML session I can say the 
> following:
> 
> - A number of people seemed to be aware that there was review going on 
> and comments being collected.

Excellent.

> - Some people (including, I believe, Anne) were aware that comment were 
> circulated and solicited two days before the session in question.

Excellent.

> - Almost no one seemed to be aware that these comments had been 
> submitted as official feedback from the HTML WG to the Math WG earlier 
> that same day.

Completely understandable.

> - A number of people seemed to feel uncomfortable with being put in the 
> position of standing behind these comments as comments from the whole WG.

There clearly is a labeling issue, one that we seem to have made 
progress on.

> I believe the confusion here was almost entirely the fault of the chairs 
> for not stating a clear process. 

Agreed.

> I believe it is unfair to seemingly 
> assign some blame to the attendees of the joint session ("zero 
> sympathy") for lack of attention,

I would agree that that would be unfair, if in fact that was what I said.

> when many of them are among the most 
> active and attentive participants in the working group. If many of those 
> people were confused about what happened, then that's a clear indication 
> that the chairs failed to set expectations properly. Similarly, it would 
> be unfair to in any way blame Shelley for the confusing situation, and I 
> was careful not to do so in my remarks.

Confusion occurred, as stated above, the confusion was not Anne's fault 
nor Shelley's fault.  It was yours, mine, and Paul's.  And I can live 
with that.  Despite the confusion, a good result occurred, and we know 
where we need to improve.  We will do better next time.

> One thing to keep in mind: typical W3C procedure is that official 
> cross-WG comments are assumed to have consensus of the Working Group 
> providing them unless stated otherwise. The chairs should have kept this 
> in mind when developing the process for cross-WG comments. I for one am 
> happy that Shelley was willing to beta test the process. Now we need to 
> fix the bugs.

We clearly have a bug or two to fix.  And I'm confident that we will fix 
them.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 16:52:59 UTC

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