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

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

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 00:07:58 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTim-HN7k5ZH4N0fWb+5zL2goBG-Y8g@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

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