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

Re: publication decision [was: details on report of PFWG HTML5 actions & issues status]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:39:04 -0600
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 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
Message-Id: <1234546744.28267.1478.camel@pav.lan>

Let's take care with subject lines, please...

On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 16:07 +0000, 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 did pretty much that in the teleconference of 29 Jan, with minutes
announce 2 Feb:

 "RESOLVED: to publish the HTML 5 spec and the diff document"
         -- http://www.w3.org/2009/01/29-html-wg-irc


The action to publish was then assigned to Mike; it took
him a little while to get it done due to travel etc.

I say "pretty much" because actually, there was/is one
outstanding objection, from Masinter/Adobe.
We like to have consensus, but we proceed without it sometimes:
"When the Chair believes that the Group has duly considered the
legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable,
the group SHOULD move on."
 -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus

And of course, the transaction that concluded 29 Jan started 22 Jan
with Chris Wilson's proposal.

> 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.

I don't see why *another* round trip through the WG would have helped.

>   This simply did not occur, and the publication
> therefore took place without the informed consent of this WG.

I don't see it that way.

> Philip TAYLOR
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 17:39:19 UTC

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