- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:38:53 -0800
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Dec 7, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: > > > True, Manu could just say he'll stand by what he has. > > But can you see the spiraling effect of this? Look at our emails -- > never ending emails will then transform into never ending change and > counter-change proposals. I don't want to make it never-ending. I'd just like both Change Proposal authors a fair chance to update in response to discussion and other Change Proposals. That seems only fair. I don't foresee any need to go more rounds than that. > > Suggestion: One proposal, one version of each counter-proposal, or > alternative proposal, one email thread debating the formal > submissions, where authors of the proposal and counter-proposal(s) can > respond. In fact, one formal discussion thread, introduced by the > chairs who provide a link to both, and a timeline for discussion. When > decisions are made, both the proposals and the associated formal > discussion thread could be used to make a decision (or call for a > vote). I think the problem with using email discussion as the sole way to follow up is that it's hard for everyone in the Working Group to follow every mailing list post. It's much easier for Working Group members to read each Change Proposal, where the essentials are collected in one place. It's also awkward for the chairs to dig rationales out of mailing list posts. It's hard to grasp what's essential in the often length posts on lengthy email threads. Thus, I'd like to give everyone the opportunity the update their Change Proposals, if they choose to take advantage. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 20:39:39 UTC