On Working Group Membership - Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: 4 Flowing text and graphics

"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
>> I understand from your blog Ian, that you are a member of the SVG WG
>
> I have already corrected you on this matter _multiple_ times in different
> forums. I am not a member of the SVG working group except in so far that I
> am an editor of a spec that is being written in a joint CSS+SVG task force
> but published through the SVG working group.

And to be an editor of a specification published through a Working Group 
there is a requirement be a member of the group (7.8 in the process doc) so 
that sentence does not make sense, you cannot be both an editor and not a 
member of the SVG Working Group - which I guess is why I've never understood 
your previous corrections.    I appreciate this may have been an 
inconvenient burden on you, but then process generally is, but it's there 
for a reason., if you did not have the time to devote to your obligations, 
you should not have joined.

I am very concerned that sXBL had editors not aware of what was happening in 
SVG 1.2, and who then raises issues about the integration at last call, that 
to me to be the sort of reason why modularisation has basically failed, and 
re-iterates the importance of actually following the process document.

I'm disappointed that you chose not to fulfil your requirements as a member 
of the SVG Working Group, and I would like to ask if you will now be 
fulfilling them, and if not why you feel that WG membership, and W3 process 
requirements do not apply to yourself?

Jim.

I would've liked to have cc'd a process issue mailing list for this, but the 
lack of a public list for that I am unable.

Received on Monday, 1 November 2004 09:04:53 UTC