- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:52:26 -0800
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe LeHegaret <plh@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
As long as the working group has chosen to have Ian as the editor, I think trying to act as if we don't have faith in him to do the editing is extremely counter productive. If we think he's the right editor then we should let him be the editor. If you don't think he's the right editor then *that* seems like something you should bring up with the working group. So far it seems like this is a minority opinion though, the WG has on several occasions chosen to keep Ian as the editor. Just like with any decision that the WG takes, there are people that like it and there are people that don't. But we all have to live with it. Complaining about it at every opportunity is just disruptive and doesn't go anywhere. / Jonas On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Anne, > > 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 [1] to the working group decision to make the revert against his wishes. > > It is a technically trivial task that would have taken a few minutes. > > It is very difficult under such circumstances to assume the eventuality of any particular action by the editor, the larger question is why should we have to be waiting. > > [1] http://www.netmagazine.com/news/ian-hickson-responds-over-html5-getting-time-element-back-111552 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 11 Nov 2011, at 11:36, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:08:16 +0100, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Is anyone really doubting that the editor will get to the change? >>> >>> Yes i am seriously doubting it, thats why i asked. No changes have occured to the canvas 2d context spec since the revert was made on it, I do not >>> think it is a situation that should be repeated with the HTML5 spec and if it does occur I want to see it nipped in the bud before it causes problems. >> >> I think the problem is doubting the editor will get to the "revert request". Because the moment someone who is not editing HTML5 starts editing the non-canonical CVS version of it, trying to clean up that mess will take hours. It's a lot of make work and as you indicate will just result in the W3C copy not getting updated until the underlying issue is resolved. >> >> >> -- >> Anne van Kesteren >> http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 21:53:27 UTC