W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2005

Re: XHTML 2 Issue handling

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:10:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4297387A.8000809@aptest.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: www-html@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org

Oh, and I neglected to say it in my other mail on this topic, but 
thanks.  Your object will surely be included in our report to the Director.

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>Dear HTML Working Group,
>
>  Please report to the Director my formal objection to the way the
>Working Group responds to comments. Formally addressing issues is
>clearly defined in the W3C Process Document [1] and the Director's
>expectations are further clarified in [2].
>
>An example for such a response from the HTML WG is the response to
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2003JulSep/0315
>
>  "Thanks for your comment. While we value your input, at this
>  time we are not able to agree with your request." -- [3]
>
>Even though Shane McCarron also included some personal remarks, the re-
>sponse doen't contain any information but that the issue got rejected.
>
>Working Groups are required to formally address issues timely, the
>response came about 21 months after I raised the issue. Responses
>are expected to include rationale for decisions, the response does
>not include any rationale. Responses are expected to be technically
>sound, the response is not. Working Groups must be able to show
>evidence of having attempted to satisfy reviewers, no such attempts
>have been made.
>
>Working Groups are expected to formally address issues on the same
>forum as they were raised. I raised the issue on the www-html-editor
>mailing list, the response however was sent only to the member-only
>mailing list w3c-html-wg and myself. For other issues the Working
>Group indicated that some changes have been made to the draft, but
>fails to provide any detail on these changes. Such responses can't
>be evaluated for technical soundness and thus fail to meet the re-
>quirements of the Process document aswell.
>
>The same basically applies to all responses I've received so far;
>I do not think that these responses can be considered substantive
>responses as defined in the Process document and thus consider my
>issues not yet formally addressed.
>
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/process#formal-address
>  [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-transitions.html#formally-address
>  [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-wg/2005AprJun/0080
>      (member-only)
>
>Thanks,
>  
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 15:11:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:04 UTC