Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-02-06

Sam,

This message does not rise to the standards of civility you are trying  
to set. Dave was trying to outline the issues in a constructive way,  
and your response is hostile and snarky (for instance implying  
cleverly that he should be ignored).

Regards,
Maciej

On Feb 5, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

>
> David Singer wrote:
>> I regret I am at an MPEG meeting and cannot dial in, as discussions  
>> are ongoing...
>> On the spec. splitting discussion, I offer the following points in  
>> an attempt to clear at least my mind:
>> * on literally splitting up the spec. that currently exists, and  
>> having multiple editors and/or published documents, I believe the  
>> editor (Ian) thinks this is more work rather than less, and doesn't  
>> advance things, and I tend to defer to him;
>> * on whether the 'base material' of the current single monolith  
>> could be 'profiled/reduced' by automated pre-processing so as to  
>> make documents better suited to various audiences, I think the  
>> answer is yes, and this seems like a nice idea, worth pursuing;
>> * on whether there should be additional, non-normative, documents  
>> that help inform, educate, or assist various communities, I think  
>> there is enthusiastic support and little opposition;  the more we  
>> help and inform, the better!
>> * on whether the 'reference', complete, normative spec. is likely  
>> to be indigestible, I tend to think so, but it should exist;
>> I think the remaining unease concerns whether there should be  
>> multiple documents, independently produced (i.e. not derived by an  
>> automated process from a common base), that overlap and all/both  
>> are normative.  I think this causes a number of people significant  
>> unease.  That unease results in the suggestion that if we put  
>> another document on a track to publication, we make it clear either  
>> that it's intended to be published as informative, or that its  
>> final publication status is undecided while we grapple with this  
>> issue.  We should not have an implied decision of normativity  
>> result from an explicit decision to pursue publication.
>> Hope that helps;  feel free to ignore me if not...
>
> I don't intent to allow much time for discussion on this topic in  
> today's call.  Mike has the task of enlisting at least two other  
> independent people who will commit to working on the spec in some  
> manner, at which point we will see if a poll is necessary (I hope  
> not but I expect so).  Once that process is complete, we'll make an  
> assessment as to how to proceed.
>
> Three points I'd like to address in your email.
>
> I disagree with the presumption of there being *the* (as in  
> singular) editor for this working group.  This working group must  
> either decide to significantly curtail the discretion it affords to  
> *the* editor, permit multiple editors to exist with equivalent  
> amounts of discretion, or face the rather significant possibility  
> that the levels of consensus that the W3C requires for Last Call and  
> beyond may never be within reach.
>
> Secondly, the notion that a document is being developed with the  
> intention of being normative but may be marked as non-normative for  
> the moment in order to progress further down the process does not  
> settle well with me.  To use your word, it makes me "uneasy".  If  
> the intent is to be normative, I say let the document say so plainly  
> and clearly. Meanwhile I would like to give everybody who might  
> disagree with either some aspect the overall direction a document a  
> document is taking an opportunity to contribute a succinct, and  
> neutrally worded, description of the issue to be included in the  
> document itself.  And I would like to apply that rule to all  
> documents this working group produces.  In short: agree with the  
> suggestion that you close your email with.
>
> And, thirdly, the idea that the base material can be profiled is, at  
> best, unproven.  If somebody is willing to step up and do that work,  
> I would do everything I can to support having this working group  
> evaluate the results of that effort.  But until such results are  
> produced, the current state is that such an effort might not be  
> feasible and that there are no current plans to do the work.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 15:34:10 UTC