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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:05:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4DFD1313.7070609@burningbird.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
The only option I seem to have is to just drop my concerns. That's 
really the same as saying I no longer care about HTML5.

I do care about HTML5, though my concern about it thins daily.

All I can do is express my concerns in the HTML comment email list or my 
own web site, and if someone like Danny wants to take those concerns to 
the HTML WG, he's more than welcome to do so.

But I won't speak through another. And the W3C shouldn't be asking 
anyone to do so.

Shelley

On 6/18/2011 3:32 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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 21:05:48 GMT

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