- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:08:33 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Manu Sporny wrote: > > What I am proposing would give us broader community feedback by the end > of the week. If consensus finds in favor of Ian's draft and not > HTML5-warnings, that will be a clear sign that we need to have the > meta-discussion on selection criteria for what is and isn't controversial. In order to get that process moving, can I ask that you address the "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." portion of the following email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0429.html At the present time, we have Manu objecting to your current draft, at least as it is presently worded: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0431.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0437.html And we have Lachy objecting to releasing two almost identical documents would be a PR nightmare: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0447.html - - - So, I am asking you to explicitly state that you object to publishing Ian's current draft for purposes of meeting the group's heartbeat requirements, while simultaneously recommending that you do not do so. We had five objections. I ruled on three, One was resolved between Leif and Anne. One was resolved between Ian and John with the assistance of Maciej. I believe that the draft you are working on has the potential to be very useful, if nothing else, I believe that it has identified that there are one ore more issues that Julian believes should be open but aren't currently present on the issues tracking list. This has already resulted in positive results: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76 I further believe that, once the draft and the issues list are reconciled, having a Working Draft that reflects these issues would be a positive and useful thing, and while I understand that not everybody agrees with this, it is clear that such a notion has enough support to merit a poll. The course of action I would like to take at this time is to state that all objections to publishing Ian's current Editor's Draft as a simple Working Draft (i.e., as incomplete and without consensus) have been resolved and to direct Mike to work with Ian and Anne on making that happen. If you object to me doing so, say so, and say why, and you will have your poll. Note: while quarterly is identified as a minimum heartbeat requirement, I see nothing that indicates that we can't pump out Working Drafts more frequently than that. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 18:09:13 UTC