W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUES 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 -- if you DON'T support these change proposals, support zero-change instead

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:05:48 -0500
Message-ID: <z2r643cc0271004301005j273f51a9qda83580d5abcd0d6@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:30 GMT