Re: details on report of PFWG HTML5 actions & issues status

Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> The notification of the actual publication could have been handled 
>> better.
>> The decision to publish, however, was openly and widely discussed over 
>> a long period of time.  Pointers can be found here:
>>> Philip TAYLOR
>> - Sam Ruby
> I am afraid that I remain unconvinced that there
> /was/ any "decision to publish"; there was a
> "plan to publish", but from my reading of the
> messages that followed Chris's announcement of
> this plan, this was still under debate.  The last
> message was sent at the end of January, and by
> that time I do not think that a consensus (or
> even near-consensus) had emerged.  I believe
> that publication was premature, and that this
> WG should have been consulted again before
> publication went ahead.

The co-chairs (Chris Wilson and myself) made a decision to publish based 
on our assessment of the input received by the working group over a 
period of several weeks and a number of phone calls.  If you have input 
on any or all of Chris's explicit request on the mailing list, the 
minutes from the phone calls, or the issue in the tracker itself could 
have been more clear on the matter, I would be glad to hear it.  Or if 
you know of some input that the chairs did not give proper attention to, 
please cite it.

Meanwhile, I will note that the publishing of the document is merely 
intended to encourage early and wide review; it explicitly does *not* 
convey any sense that the work has consensus, is stable, or even meets 
the requirements of the Working Group.

> Philip TAYLOR

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 15:56:53 UTC