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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:26:16 -0500
Message-ID: <49959F28.8070207@intertwingly.net>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
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

Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:
> 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.

Access to the co-Chair's minds is not required.  The chairs are 
available via e-mail on this very list, on IRC intermittently (and 
guaranteed at least once a week), and via phone.  The minutes from the 
phone conversations are made available in raw form immediately via the 
IRC minutes, and in a cleaned up form shortly thereafter.

Re "This simply did not occur", I continue to believe that the agenda 
and Chris's clarification were clear requests for objections:


> Philip TAYLOR

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 16:26:49 UTC

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