- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:46:48 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > >> Noting that the current poll demonstrates that consensus would be >> difficult to achieve[1] regarding the publishing of the HTML5-warnings >> draft, I am withdrawing it as a candidate for publishing as a heartbeat >> WD for HTML WG. > > I think it's up to Sam whether to withdraw the poll. Here are a few > comments on some of your coments. There is nothing to withdraw... it was just a poll. But it is time to make a decision and move on: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JulSep/0024.html >> There are a number of interesting data points that came out of the poll >> data: >> >> 1) The biggest problem seemed to be a lack of consistency with which >> warnings were provided as well as the warning language. Even though >> more consistent rules were applied to the second draft, the changes >> were not enough. The next draft that I author will apply a consistent >> set of rules for warnings and status markers. For example, a >> combination of WHAT WG status markers and all ISSUES from the HTML WG >> issue tracker older than X months). > > I would support a draft incorporating status markers and HTML WG ISSUEs > older than a certain age (and even new ISSUEs that have old email > discussion). I believe it might be possible to add these markers in an > automated way. I think James showed some prototype work towards that > end, at least on adding the section maturity markers. Combined with > cleaning out stale issues, this should put us in a good place for > tracking our status as we approach Last Call. > > I believe a draft along these lines could gain consensus. More importantly, it would have a nice side benefit of cleaning up the issues list. I was disappointed to the RDFa issue expressed for the first time in the context of a draft. I was pleased to see Shelley raise issue-76. I was also pleased to see the work that you (Maciej) have done towards cleaning out old issues. And I want to thank Manu for his draft as I believe that it was an important catalyst prompting both of these actions. Which reminds me, Maciej (or anybody else) care to propose a second wave of issues for closure for the upcoming week? >> 2) Publishing more than one WD at a time seems to be a very unpopular >> way forward. It may be that publishing non-normative differences >> as WDs are problematic, or it may be that publishing more than >> one WD is seen as confusing... but the issue is not as >> uncontroversial as Ian, Sam and I had hoped it would be. > > I was surprised by this myself. Sam has been promoting the idea of > multiple independent drafts, and there hasn't been a lot of opposition > in principle. But it seems like most of the Working Group is not on > board with this idea, at least in the case of such minor differences. To > me this says: we need to work harder on getting one draft that better > reflects broader consensus. Multiple drafts never has been a goal in itself, getting to the point where we have a single draft that represents broader consensus is. Borrowing your words below, I also think part of the split was due to an artifact in the poll construction. Ian's response, in particular, made it clear that it was for him. >> 3) The issue seemed to be divisive, with many people voting for one >> WD and not the other. >> 4) Since respondents could see the poll results before the poll was >> over, the results may have been subject to block voting (for both >> drafts). > > I think part of the split was due to an artifact in the poll > construction. In particular, for people who were happy to publish both > drafts, there was no way to express a preference in case only one ended > up being published. Since the "only one draft" option took an early > lead, at least some people chose to vote for only one draft to express > their preference. WBS has the option of not allowing the results to be seen until the poll is closed. > - Maciej > >> 5) I had not seen any opposition or support from a number of the voters >> that voted, prior to voting. It's concerning because they provided no >> feedback, have made very few posts to HTML WG (if any) over the past >> several months, but still voted on the spec. Both drafts received >> these votes, and we have no idea if the people that voted had read >> the thread in detail or truly understood what they were voting for. >> There are several examples where it is clear that the voters were not >> tracking the discussion on this mailing list. >> 6) The poll was fairly close, so there is a non-trivial number of people >> that care about warning/status language being published with the >> HTML5 spec. >> >> The next step is to iterate on the current HTML5-warnings draft and >> create a mechanism that is programmatic that inserts the proper warning >> text, from both the WHAT WG status tracker and HTML WG issue tracker (as >> an overlay) to the W3C published spec. Once the "issue consistency" >> problem is addressed, HTML5 community feedback will be encouraged in >> order to determine if there are more improvements that will be required >> when publishing warning/stability text along with the HTML WG draft. I will note that while the document links to emails and bug reports in the status section, neither draft contains a link to the open issues list itself. >> -- manu >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd08/results >> >> -- >> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) >> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >> blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce >> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/ - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 11:47:32 UTC