- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:19:30 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 9, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Manu Sporny wrote: >>>> 2. Two other independent voices to support the publishing of this >>>> draft. >>>> Without those voices, this proposal cannot be considered for >>>> publishing. >> Sam, Chris - just noting that the HTML5-warnings draft has met the >> minimum supporters requirement: > > I agree that minimum support is present, but before proceeding, I > simply want to ensure that there at least one person disagrees with > each option. So what I would like to ask is that if there is > anybody who disagrees with any of the following, please say so, and > indicate why. Indicating why is not optional. The reason need not > be something others will agree with (obviously), but must not be > frivolous. I disagree with the second option of the ones listed below, because I don't think Manu's proposed set of issue warnings accurately reflects the set of "controversial issues". > >> ----------------- Pick one -------------------------- >> [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft to address the heartbeat >> requirement. >> [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft with Manu's warning language to >> address the heartbeat requirement. >> [ ] Publish both Ian's latest draft and Manu's latest warning >> language draft. > > If it turns out that a poll is necessary, I'm concerned that a poll > with three options could end up with a plurality. Given the input I > have seen, I would prefer two separate questions: up or down on > publishing Ian's draft at this time, and up or down on publishing > Manu's draft at this time. Since non-publishing is not an option, > voting down on both will be treated as an abstain and not be counted > further. Of the remaining votes, if 50% or more vote for either > draft that draft will be published. People will be allowed to vote > for both drafts. Two separate up-or-down votes seems like an appropriate way to proceed, if we are to have a poll at all. > > If anybody thinks that that approach is not fair and appropriate, I > will ask them to say so at this time, and explain why. > >> -- manu > > - Sam Ruby >
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 01:20:11 UTC