- 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>
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