- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 00:07:58 +0200
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Shelley - I wasn't suggesting speaking for you per se, just acting as a transparent conduit (while still being happily responsible for any repercussions). > I will NOT skulk in the background like a naughty girl not allowed in the > clubhouse. What I've found most annoying since getting closer to this group isn't the clubhouseness (I find myself agreeing with the WHATWG boys a lot more than I'd ever have expected) but the antics of one particular naughty boy in the showers. I guess you should sign up again, Shelley. Sam - I joined the WG because there were specific issues on which I believed I have experience over which I thought bad decisions were being made (in a word, extensibility). But hey, water under the bridge now. Since then the process has disappointed me, I do think it's important that the W3C HTML5 spec has better-than-usual credibility to pre-empt stupid insertions and a return to the browser wars (this time on mobile devices, most likely). But right now it seems a mess, moving goalposts is one thing... Well that's it - I was going to continue with another lousy sporting analogy, but moving goalposts is enough. This isn't a continually evolving spec. Grr, typical, never used to think HTML mattered much, now I do I'm too busy trying to pay off my credit cards (took a long unscheduled sabbatical) to be able to devote time to it. Given this, I hope you will take on board this informal suggestion backed up by nothing: a longer than usual Last Call period, with a time-stamped spec. Cooling off period. Whatever the process between that and Rec doesn't matter so much as long as people have time to reflect in between. I can't see mutually acceptable compromises appearing between the accessibility and flashy camps appearing otherwise. Hey ho, I find it exhausting and I've only been around a couple of months. You have my sincerest sympathy Sam :) Cheers, Danny. (btw, Shelley - I can't find the thread re. cross-site stuff - got pointers?) On 18 June 2011 23:08, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: > Woops, correction > > > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 22:08:25 UTC