Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:59 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>>>> My 2 requests are simple:
>>>> Indicate in the current Working Draft that the ultimate fate of 
>>>> @summary
>>>> is an open issue (as opposed to a conformant but obsolete attribute, 
>>>> which
>>>> nobody has agreed to yet). [...]
>>>> More importantly however, is to remove the author guidance that today
>>>> explicitly contradicts existing, W3C approved Accessibility Guidance as
>>>> written in WCAG 2.  [...]
>>> I think it's reasonable for you to pursue these requests. Do you find 
>>> the current Editor's Draft to be more objectionable on these points 
>>> than the last published Working Draft? The previous working draft 
>>> made summary="" entirely nonconforming, and contained accessibility 
>>> advice on table descriptions contrary to WCAG2. I could understand 
>>> holding publication if the Editor's Draft had gotten egregiously 
>>> worse on some particular point, from your point of view. But I don't 
>>> see the point of delaying publication if things are no worse (and 
>>> arguably a bit better) than the last Working Draft.
>> This is not a matter of delay.  Ignoring other drafts that may not be 
>> in consideration, there apparently will be two drafts ready by 
>> sometime Monday-ish.  If Ian is not predisposed to consider the 
>> request that John has proposed and John has not withdrawn his request, 
>> there will be a poll.  Based on the results of that poll, one or both 
>> drafts will be published.
> I think it would make sense to have a poll on publishing John's draft, 
> once he has prepared one. I'm not sure it makes sense to plan to hold a 
> poll on Monday, on publishing FPWD of a draft that does not exist as of 
> today.
> However, John's requests are currently couched as requests to change 
> Ian's draft before it can be published. And your poll option #4 seems to 
> be phrased that way too (although as I pointed out, it's not entirely 
> clear what that option calls for).
> I also note that you no longer seem to be applying your prior 
> requirement for at least three independent contributors to Mike's draft 
> or to John's possible future draft. Have you decided to set that rule 
> aside?

I personally will vote against publishing Mike's draft at this time, and 
will encourage others to do likewise.  But if the Working Group 
collectively feels otherwise, I won't stand in their way.  I've said 
this, and I've said this to you before, and I've said it within the last 
72 hours[1].

As to John's text, it is quite evident to me that his request has been 
stated by a large number of independent people many, many, many, many, 
many, times.  The only reason why his text is not up for consideration 
at this time is that Ian disagrees with it.  He certainly is not alone 
in that disagreement, but that should in no way block a request for a 
poll on the matter.

As you can see with my recent responses to Ben, I have little tolerance 
to people playing procedural games in order to block progress of others. 
   I'm not suggesting that you have done so yet, but if you continue to 
misrepresent my position and continue to suggest that John's request 
should be delayed, I will view it as such.

My personal preference is that Ian and John agree to some text that 
indicates that this area is still under active debate, and that there be 
no poll.  If that fails to occur, I personally would not be opposed to 
either or both drafts being published, in the latter case simultaneously.

> Regards,
> Maciej


Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 03:00:15 UTC