W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

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

From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:07:29 +0000
Message-ID: <49959AC1.5040408@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, janina@rednote.net

Sam Ruby wrote:

 > 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.

It is not possible to know if there was any "input [to which] the chairs
did not give proper attention", since we (the WG) do not have access to
the workings of the co-Chairmen's minds.  My point (and I do not wish
to drag this matter out) is that I believe that, following the cessation
of active discussion on 30th ult., the co-Chairmen should have reported
to the WG that they had considered all points raised so far, and that,
in their opinion, there were no outstanding objections to publication.
They should then have gone on to say that they proposed publishing the
current draft of the specification as a WD on <date> and asking if there
were any objections to this.  This simply did not occur, and the publication
therefore took place without the informed consent of this WG.

Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 16:08:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC