Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 3

Sam Ruby wrote:
> [...]
> And now from 3 to 2.  I base this on the following email dropping the 
> third option:
> John Foliot has the lone remaining objection, and he has indicated that 
> he expects that he "will be able" to remove his second objection:
> I quoted "will be able" as that is quite a different thing than having 
> done so.

It looks like we are holding at two options.  Furthermore, it looks like 
Ben will not be raising an objection at this time:

A number of times John Foliot has indicated that this is not about 
becoming an editor or stopping Ian from his other works.  One such 
statement can be found at the bottom of this email:

I take John at his word, and I asked Ian if he were willing to produce 
such a draft.

I believe that it is fair to say that Ian is not willing to do so:

So it looks like it is time for a poll.  I would even be willing to let 
Ian author both drafts to be considered, and as long as John approved 
one of them the poll could proceed.  If Ian is not willing to produce 
such a draft, then and only then will we proceed with John's draft.  I'm 
offering Ian this possibility as I want to make it totally clear that 
this poll is about the issue and not about the editorship.

The two things I am not willing to do:

   (1) Reject John's argument by fiat and without so much as a poll.
       It is clear to me that more than three independent people will
       support John's option, and I'm totally convinced that the
       results of a poll will bear that out.

   (2) Entertain the notion of having a poll on two abstract notions
       rather than a poll about two concrete proposals.  I base this on
       the observation, that to every answer Ian's response has proven
       to be "I don't understand", and while we haven't quite hit the
       point of infinite regress, we have hit my personal stack overflow.

As to what the poll will be, people will be provided with two links and 
a set of salient differences.  At the moment, Ian's draft can be found

And John's draft can be currently be found here:

Herewith are a few excerpts of Ian's document, which I will allow to 
speak for themselves:

   Authors should not specify the summary attribute on table elements.

   Use of the summary attribute is discouraged because in practice it
   is poorly understood

   It has been suggested that the summary="" attribute should not be
   obsolete, and the working group may vote on the matter at some future

   conformance checkers are required to warn the user when the following
   features are used in a document: The presence of a summary attribute
   on a table element.

John's document does not have any of the above, and adds:

   The <code>summary</code> attribute provides a summary of the table's
   purpose and structure for user agents rendering to non-visual media
   such as speech and Braille. It is not visually rendered on screen.

   It has been suggested that the summary attribute should be made
   obsolete, and the working group may vote on the matter  at some future

   <table summary="Schedule for Route 7 going downtown. Service begins
   at 4:00 AM and ends at midnight. Intersections are listed in the top
   row.  Find the intersection closest to your starting point or
   destination, then read down that column to find out what time the bus
   leaves that intersection.">

I do not believe that it should take very long for people to grasp the 
differences between these two.  But even so, I am not rushing this in 
any way.  The poll will begin on Thursday's regularly scheduled call, 
and will continue until approximately 4 hours before the following 
Thursday's call, at which point the document that is selected will be 
published as a Working Group Draft.

As the matter as to who "gets to be an editor" is of a paramount concern 
to some people, I wish to once again encourage Ian to draft a document 
for consideration so that we can separate out that concern.

Since publishing such a Working Draft does not require consensus, I will 
go with a simple majority, and every member of the working group at the 
time of Thursday's call will be eligible to express their opinion, even 
if they are invited experts or even members of the same organization as 
another member of the working group.

In the event that it is an exact tie, I plan to go with Ian's draft.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 01:50:50 UTC