Re: HTML5-warnings - minimum supporters requirement met

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