- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:57:23 -0500
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote: >> Hi Henri, >> >> On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> Thank you for sharing this with the WG. (Others in the WG may also be >>> interested in the IRC discussion from yesterday logged at: >>> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20090129#l-116 ) >>> >>> It bothers me that it wasn't stated up front that private feedback in >>> general and from the W3C Team in particular was a major motivating factor >>> behind "HTML 5: The Markup Language". (Or if this has been stated before, I >>> haven't properly noticed it.) >>> >>> The HTML5 effort has been criticized for Hixie taking private feedback >>> into account in his editing of "HTML 5". However, Hixie has at least readily >>> disclosed that private feedback has motivated notable editing choices. >>> >>> Given the recent suggestion that the WG needs some ground rules for taking >>> on new drafts, I'd like to suggest that one of the ground rules be that >>> editors disclose to the WG when a draft or a section of a draft comes into >>> existence in response to private feedback the whole group isn't seeing. (Of >>> course, I'd prefer even more openness.) >> As long as Ian Hickson is the editor of the main deliverable, I don't think >> we're going to get more openness. He's made it clear that he wants all >> decisions made within the confines of his own mind, with no "others" >> undermining that process. As long as that is the modus operandi for the WG, >> openness is the most inappropriate word imaginable to describe the >> activities of this WG. > > If that is the case I strongly disagree with such a decision process. > Can you point out where either Hixie or someone else said that this is > the process we use, or where a formal or informal decision was made > within the WG to allow for such a decision process. Here are two such links, and the first contains a further link: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/11/20/Half-Full#c1227317561 http://realtech.burningbird.net/semweb/accessibility-and-microformats/#comment-471 My thoughts on how to resolve the issue, the third being the one that is most to the point on this discussion, and is the reason why I intend to vote 'yes' if^h^hwhen we proceed to the poll mentioned in my previous email: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/11/20/Half-Full http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/12/31/Thanks-for-Volunteering http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/01/16/WHATWG-FAQ - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 01:58:03 UTC