- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:05:48 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
I cannot count on fairness, equitable treatment, or lack of bias by the co-chairs of the HTML WG, therefore I have no alternative but to quit. Shelley On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> On 04/30/2010 11:12 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 04/30/2010 09:24 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I asked in another email to respond if you supported these change >>>>> proposals. Many thanks to Laura for being the only person who does. >>>>> >>>>> Now, I'm trying to gauge (or is that meter?) the support for "zero >>>>> change, all of these items are fine the way they are" change proposal. >>>>> Laura had a good point: if you support the zero-change proposal, >>>>> you're saying, in effect, these items are fine, just as they are. >>>>> >>>>> I'm trying to determine how much _direct_ support there is for the >>>>> zero-change proposal. This will help me decide what I need to do about >>>>> my change proposals. If you believe that the elements are fine, as is, >>>>> and no change is necessary, can you please respond to this email? >>>>> >>>>> Needless to say, if you support any of my change proposals, please >>>>> respond in the other email thread. >>>> >>>> As I just said on another thread[1], I'd like to discourage the use of >>>> this >>>> mailing list for expressing sentiments of +1. Instead, I would encourage >>>> everybody to review all proposals and decide which ones they would object >>>> to, identify with as much precision as possible the reasons why they >>>> would >>>> object to those proposals, and (if at all possible) identify what changes >>>> could be made to those proposals which would result in a proposal that >>>> they >>>> could support. >>>> >>>> Note that in the above I said "this mailing list". There are plenty of >>>> other venues for doing what Shelley suggests: create a wiki page, use >>>> www-archive, IRC, twitter, email, phone, meetups, whatever. >>>> >>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1287.html >>> >>> I was hoping to get responses such as those you've asked for. >> >> Cool. Then we are on the same side. And since you are seeking such >> responses, it is only fair that you be prepared to provide similar >> information. >> >> Shelley: what, specifically, could be changed in any of the counter >> proposals which would result in a new proposal that you could support? >> >>> I can't believe that people dislike ALL of the change proposals, >>> equally. I think that the fact that the co-chairs grouped these from >>> the beginning has left them grouped, regardless of what people think >>> about the individual items. >>> >>> If some have less resistance than others, then I can figure out if I >>> need to strengthen my change proposals more, or consider dropping a >>> couple in order to focus on the rest. >>> >>> With them grouped, I'm stymied as to action, because these items are >>> not the same. They are very different constructs. I don't understand >>> the same reasons being applied to ALL the items. >> >> What we need here is new information. Yes, all of the original proposals >> were submitted at essentially the same time. Yes, some people saw some >> commonality and inquired if they could group the counter proposals as they >> saw fit. Yes, the chairs not only acknowledged the presence of such >> questions, we said that we weren't going to constrain the organization of >> the proposals be presented. Yes, after the counter proposals were produced, >> there were questions asked about how some elements seemed different than >> others. And, yes there were answers provided. > > But the one counter-proposal is all or nothing, Sam. It was > unconscionable that the co-chairs would allow this. > >> >> What we, the co-chairs, are looking for is reaching a point where everybody >> involved feels that they have said everything that needs to be said. When >> we reach that point it seems likely that some form of survey for objections >> on one or more of these issues will be the next step. If it turns out that >> changes can be made to any of the existing proposals or counter proposals >> that meets with general approval, then all the better. >> >> So, once again, Shelley: what, specifically, could be changed in any of the >> counter proposals which would result in a new proposal that you could >> support? What we need here is new information. >> > > That they be split out into separate counter-proposals, so each issue > can be assessed as an individual item, rather than based on some > grouping. > > I've asked for this, time and again. I still wouldn't support the > counter-proposals, but at least, I hope, that people would then be > encouraged to consider each, individually, before making their > decisions. > >>> Shelley >> >> - Sam Ruby >> > > Shelley >
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 17:06:23 UTC