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 16:08:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4DFD13BD.5080607@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>
Woops, correction

I will NOT skulk in the background like a naughty girl not allowed in 
the clubhouse.

Darn typos. And it would have been such a good ending line, too.

Shelley

On 6/18/2011 4:00 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> What you're asking is for me to have to work through another person, 
> because the HTML WG will not allow me to present my own arguments. You 
> seem to be implying that the reason why is I can't be trusted to be 
> civil. Or at least, that's how I take your specific note about 
> "discussion guidelines" and "civil post".
>
> This in light of one exchange this week where one person accused 
> another of trolling[1] because the other continued questioning a 
> decision. A couple of weeks ago, another member accused others of 
> being "armchair complainers"[2], because of a change they sought.
>
> Are these demonstrations of acceptably civil posts that meet 
> discussion guidelines you're concerned I can't meet? If so, then I can 
> say without hesitation, I can follow the guidelines.
>
> People will get testy in these working groups. And tired and cranky. 
> They'll say things that, on hindsight, would be better left unsaid. 
> They'll say things others will misinterpret. Most of the time people 
> will correct themselves before anyone has to intervene. Sometimes 
> folks will have to intervene.
>
> I have no problems with any of this. What I do have a problem with is 
> being singled out. That, and the reasons for being singled out.
>
> No, again with thanks to Danny, but I continue to decline. No one 
> speaks for me, Sam.  I will skulk in the background like a naughty 
> girl not allowed in the clubhouse.
>
> Shelley
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0234.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0035.html
>
>
> 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 21:08:38 GMT

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