- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:14:09 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, MaciejStachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe LeHegaret <plh@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Surely if the editor was unable to make the edit but fully intended to at the earliest opportunity he could have simply emailed the working group to that effect no? So it is not possible for the editor to put back time in his copy and overwrite the current W3C copy? Thus undoing all the harm. I thought that would result in the appropriate outcome and am not understanding why that would be such a technical challenge? Regards Stevef Sent from my iPhone On 11 Nov 2011, at 16:01, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:47:25 +0100, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> The editor had more than a reasonable amount of time to get to the revert request, he found time to respond to other bugs and publicly respond to the working group decision to make the revert against his wishes. > > Replying to a bug and answering some questions does not mean Ian had access to the source document where the edit needs to be made. And even if he did, the steps taken now are way more harmful than waiting a little longer. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 16:15:27 UTC