W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: WG comments, Working Drafts, and Last Call -- clarification please?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:58:00 -0500
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249588680.14124.9579.camel@pav.lan>
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:28 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> But setting aside the process arcana, I think the bottom line is this:
> Working Groups are supposed to work out issues amongst their members  
> before going to Last Call. The point of Last Call is to announce this  
> to the world, and thereby solicit broader feedback. If Working Group  
> members are raising a lot of serious substantive issues during Last  
> Call, the process has failed.

Yes, that's a better way to put it.

>  But this doesn't mean a member is  
> required to be completely silent and toe the party line. I think you,  
> Dan and I probably agree on the basic principles here, but Dan's way  
> of putting it may have given the impression that Last Call somehow  
> silences Working Group members. I don't think that is the case, and I  
> don't think we should send that impression.
> I should also add that quitting a Working Group in order to reopen  
> closed issues as an outside commenter would be bad faith behavior, and  
> I doubt either the WG or the Director would be favorably disposed to  
> objections raised in such a fashion. I don't think anyone seriously  
> wants to do that, but let's be clear that we're better off working  
> within the process, and there is no actual need to game the system in  
> weird ways.
> Regards,
> Maciej
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:58:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:53 UTC