Re: time at TPAC other than Wednesday?

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 6:18 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 9, 2016, at 11:49, Grisha Lyukshin <glyuk@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Johannes,
>> 
>> I was the one to organize the meeting. To make things clear, this was an ad hoc meeting with the intent for the browsers to resolve any ambiguities and questions on beforeInput spec, which we did. This was the reason I invited representatives from each browser only.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Thanks for providing some light on this. However, I must say I am extremely surprised, to say the least.
> 
> Informal discussions between anybody is of course fine. But informal discussions are about discussing, not deciding.

Nobody decided anything there.

> However, as far as I gather, this is a meeting where resolutions were made, issues were resolved, a document of was deleted by someone who is not its editor, despite the editor (who was not invited to the meeting) protesting...

As I explained, the document I removed had no content other than the one already present in the HTML5 spec as well as Aryeh's contenteditable spec.  Furthermore, I don't recall the task force deciding to publish this document in the first place.

If anything, I was astounded by the fact this document existed at all, and was published as if it were the consensus of the task force.  So the removal was purely editorial / administrative in nature.

This is precisely why I haven't made changes or send PRs for other things we discussed because that would require the discussion in the task force per the W3C process.

If the rest of the participants disagree with that, then I can revert the change and bring the document back.

> Forgive me if I'm over reacting, but this doesn't sound like "consensus and due process" to me.

There was no consensus of any sort since this was not a F2F of the task force.  Removal of the document was NOTHING to do with us deciding anything in the closed doors.  I agree my commit message was extremely misleading and I didn't provide adequate context in which this was discussed so I apologize for that.

- R. Niwa

Received on Saturday, 9 January 2016 21:30:21 UTC