W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2011

Re: I am Spartacus! [was Re: revert requests]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:32:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4DFD0B58.5020607@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 06/18/2011 04:25 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> I appreciate your offer, Danny, but I don't know how it would work.
>
> I can't email concerns or reasons for making a revert request to the
> HTML WG. As Sam Ruby was careful to outline, only members can make the
> request, only members can send emails with revert requests to the group.

Danny is a member of the working group, and will be held accountable to 
the discussion guidelines for everything that he posts to public-html. 
If he does post a civil revert request with a technical rationale on 
that list, and it receives a second, it will be evaluated.

The next time the chairs are scheduled to meet is at 4pm EDT on Monday.

> Thanks, though, for the offer.
>
> Shelley

- Sam Ruby

> On 6/18/2011 1:15 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> I'm not at all comfortable with Shelley's position in relation to the
>> WG, despite a lot of good input she does appear to have become
>> disenfranchised. Sure, some of that may be her idiosyncratic response
>> to events, but idiosyncrasy is blatant all over HTML5. Whatever, the
>> net result is the spec suffers by the lack of consideration of the
>> issues (that should be) raised.
>>
>> So I'd like to declare myself as a willing proxy for Shelley -
>> anything she says, take it that I said it as a WG member.
>>
>> Shelley and I have differed many times over the years, and I'm sure on
>> a lot of of the detail of the current project we have opposing views.
>> But for the more significant aspects (like editorial process) I
>> believe she is arguing valid points. Such a case below.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Danny.
>>
>> On 18 June 2011 09:00, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 2011-06-18 04:06, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> We shouldn't have to, at this time in the process, spend the next
>>>> several months trying to spot the major changes that the editor
>>>> introduces without any warning or any previous discussion. What makes
>>>> things worse is that not ony are we having to deal with major
>>>> differences between the W3C and WHATWG HTML documents, but now even the
>>>> Last Call and editor's drafts of HTML5 at the W3C are significantly
>>>> different--differences not introduced through the procedure you hold so
>>>> dear.
>>>> ...
>>> +1 on this.
>>>
>>> Last Call means that for every change to the "living standard",
>>> *somebody*
>>> will need to figure out whether it needs to go to the HTML5 spec as
>>> well and
>>> make that happen (and nothing more). A "branch", so to speak.
>>>
>>> Until this happens, LC doesn't work for me. It's already impossible to
>>> review the full spec; but having to watch for surprising feature
>>> additions
>>> as we go along makes things much worse.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Julian
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 20:32:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:36 GMT