- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:54:07 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13263 --- Comment #11 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2012-01-25 16:54:05 UTC --- Mike has commented on public-html: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0133.html In that post, he cited Maciej's proposed resolution, but not my comments that immediately followed where I argued against a preference poll. We have an editor who, given the opportunity, will take it to "editorialize" about how much he doesn't believe in the W3C, and will defend putting in examples that, if followed, will allegedly produce inaccessible web pages, and will provide no other rationale for controversial changes than "I like it the way it is". Leaving "editorial" decisions to such an editor and providing no recourse to the Working Group will simply result in Formal Objections. Leaving the process as it is may or may not reduce the number of Formal Objections. But it will ensure that if we get Formal Objections that we have captured all of the necessary information to document why the decision was made as it was. Meanwhile, we have some evidence that asking for a Change Proposal has led to many issues being closed without prejudice, and others to be adopted by amicable consent. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 16:54:18 UTC