Re: Formal Objection in Questions 1 and 3 on the Ballot

[ Massively overquoting to make sure this response is archived 
in context. ]

That is sufficient to remove my significant Formal Objection.

This still does not resolves the more procedural issue of posing 
the question in a manner which presupposes the outcome of the 
vote on whether to adopt the WHAT WG submission (the remaining 
practical issues are within the Chairs' remit to decide so do 
not constitute grounds for objection). I would however be happy, 
relieved even, to waive that point — at the Chairs' preference 
— in order to waste as little time as possible.

Is it permissible to stipulate that the question as posed was a 
clerical error and that it should have included the provision 
that it only applied if the WG's decision should happen to 
permit it within the practical limitations?

If so I remove my Formal Objection entirely on this point and 
vote in favor ("yes") of Dave Hyatt and Ian Hickson as Editors 
should the practicalities allow them to accept the position.

Thank you Ian! (Ian Hickson) wrote:

>On Sat, 5 May 2007, Terje Bless wrote:
>>- In order for this Formal Objection to be removed, the following must be
>>a) Ian Hickson must give a clear statement that he accepts the role of
>>Editor in the WG, that is not contingent on how the WG chooses to produce
>>its deliverables. Further, that he will not make use of his possible
>>resignation as a treat or argument to influence how the WG chooses make
>>its decisions or to produce its deliverables.
>I can't give that statement, because it would be a lie.
>I'm happy to be an editor in this working group, but there's no point me
>volunteering to be an editor if I wouldn't have the time to do it or if
>the working conditions would be such that I would not be happy.
>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.
>These are not intended to be threats, nor am I attempting to hold the spec
>or the working group hostage. I am not willing to put this specification
>above my own health and well-being, and this therefore requires that I
>have enough time to do the work, and that the work be pleasant. Trying to
>write one spec is a full-time job, I couldn't write two. Trying to write a
>spec using a full consensus-based approach all the way from initial
>proposals to finished product is too stressful for me.
>Now, that isn't to say that the group should adopt the WHATWG spec, nor is
>it to say that the group should adopt the editing model I've described
>above. I would still want to be an active part of this working group even
>if the group went in another direction. I just wouldn't be interested in
>being an editor.
>Indeed, you will note that I (and therefore Google) abstained from voting
>on the topic, because I do not want to make it seem that I (or Google) is
>trying to steer this working group one way or another.
>So, in conclusion. I cannot accept the role of Editor in the WG in a
>manner that is not contingent on how the WG chooses to produce its
>deliverables. I do not think that asking me to make such a commitment is a
>sensible request.
   You deliberately confused me by using that *alphnumeric* 
sorting again
   didn't you :-P Can't you use the same randomising hash 
function my brain
   does? I wish I could find the spec for that function btw ...
                                                 — Andy Burns 
on Fedora-Devel

Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 01:17:28 UTC