Re: ISSUE-176 Change Proposal

Sam Ruby, HTML WG co-chair did respond in the HTML WG.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Sep/0240.html

I replied back, but the response will be bounced by the W3C email 
system. I've duplicated the answer here:

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to read the change 
proposal, and providing feedback. I do appreciate both.

However, and with all due respect, I won't be changing the text.

The Change Proposal process was meant to cover specific issues related 
to the technical decisions related to the specifications--or at least, 
that seems to be the general theme. The removal of the entire Editing 
API was not a technical decision, it was a political one. It was one 
member company, Google, acting unilaterally to not only subsume 
responsibility for the Editing API, but also undermine the integrity of 
the HTML WG and the W3C.

If Apple and Microsoft are indifferent to Google's actions, I'm not 
going to spend a great deal of my time arguing this issue. I figured, 
it's more their problem than mine.

If the HTML WG isn't going to challenge actions that directly undermine 
its own credibility, I'm certainly not going to spend a great deal of my 
time fighting for the group's viability. Again, if you don't care, then 
I shouldn't care, either.

If you want to reject this change proposal because it doesn't meet some 
"template", please feel free to do. I could consider filing a Formal 
Objection, but frankly, the only ones really being hurt by any of this 
are your members who are acting in good faith, and the Working Group's 
and W3C's own credibility.

I had said I would write a change proposal for Issue 176. I have now 
done so.

Again, thank you for taking the time to respond.

Regards

Shelley

Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 23:03:27 UTC