- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:29:06 -0500
- To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
I guess, I should cc the list so that the entire WG knows what is being discussed in the archives. Take care, Rob ------------------------ original message- On Aug 16, 2007, at 1:22 AM, Robert Burns wrote: > Hi Edward, > > On Aug 16, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Edward O'Connor wrote: > >>> I think the point you're missing here Lachlan is that the editor is >>> supposed to make edits to the draft that reflect the consensus of >>> the >>> WG. That's not what's happening Instead these edits to do not at all >>> reflect consensus of the WG: they reflect the views of just the >>> editor. >> >> Hmm. >> >> I sent this email to Jason the other day; perhaps it bears on this >> issue for you as welll. >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Aug/0007.html >> > > I have no idea how you draw the conclusions you're drawing.. Care > to explain? Over email, Ian promised: > > Thus, as I have said before, I would only volunteer as editor if: > > * the specification developed by the HTML WG is exactly the same > as the > specification developed by the WHATWG, and > > * the specification is written using an iterative model where the > editors listen to all the feedback, update the spec to take this > feedback into account, and repeat the process, and > > * only major objections that cannot be resolved even after the > iterative > model has been thoroughly applied get escalated to group-wide > consensus-based voting. > > What I object to is precisely that he's not adhering to those > promises. He is not listening to feedback at all. He ignores > feedback, fails to read feedback in good faith and merrily edits > the draft without taking the feedback into account. > > There is nothing in the recent edits regarding @alt and @usemap > that has listened to any of the feedback, Instead he spends his > time compiling lists and scoring the WGs participants[1]. How does > that fit with the process Ian promised to adhere to? > > Take care, > Rob [1]: <http://junkyard.damowmow.com/290>
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 06:29:25 UTC