- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:47:09 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > > James Graham wrote: >> ... >> The decision making process in the charter specifically documents how >> to break that cycle. The first requirement is to demonstrate that >> there is a need to do so. >> ... > > I think it was pretty clear that there was a need to. > > The discussion had been going on for a long time, and there was no > visible progress on it. So it appears to me that the chairs were right > in trying to get progress on this issue. In this case the feedback cycle looked like this Initial draft -- Lots and lots of feedback -- New draft including @headers -- More feedback It's not clear to me why making a decision now before the second "redraft" stage of the cycle makes sense. It would make more sense if the editor had made a change, people were still unhappy, but felt that they had already presented all their arguments. If there is a real need to speed up the redrafing of this section, I think it is possible to ask the editor to prioritize it; as far as I am aware that has not occurred. -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2008 13:47:47 UTC