Draft Formal Reply (was: Draft of @summary text for HTML 5 poll)

Summary:

I am prepared to Formally reply, on behalf of the HTML Working Group, 
and to the Protocols and Formats Working Group, that the HTML Working 
Group does not find the "Draft of @summary text for HTML 5 poll" (cited 
below) to be the basis of something we can proceed with, but we 
encourage the PFWG to take in consideration the inputs of Laura, 
Shelley, and Ian (also cited below) and produce a second draft for 
consideration.

If anybody disagrees with this approach, please speak up.

Detail:

On 3 Jun 2009, Chris and I were notified of a consensus position of the 
PFWG on the matter of @summary:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0026.html

On 8 Jun, I tried to identify the issues involved.  Specifically, I 
asked the question: How do we close the gap between "downplayed error" 
and "optional but allowed"?  Especially where the browser behavior is 
not in dispute.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0289.html

On 25 June, Joshue O Connor agreed to draft @summary voting (Straw poll) 
text in conjunction with PF

On 7 July, Janina Sajka requested the basic human courtesy of 
acknowledgement:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0067.html

And further clarified that the PFWG doesn't make formal replies to 
individuals:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0069.html

I identify the failing as mine and Chris's:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0074.html

I don't like making the same mistake twice, so this time I wish to 
formally acknowledge the draft, and this note is a part of that process.

On 16 June, Joshue produces a first draft, and sends it to myself, 
copying Ian Hickson, Janina Sajka, and Michael Cooper.

On 17 June, Joshue produces a second draft, and adds Chris Wilson, Dan 
Connoly, and Michael Smith to the copy list.  During the discussion, 
this text was identified as "PF member confidential".

On 23 June, I received permission to forward the draft to the HTML 
Working Group.

It is now less than 24 hours since I have done so, but it is clear to me 
that the text provided as the subject of a vote is not something that 
the HTML Working Group would find acceptable.  If others disagree, 
(i.e., DO feel that the text is suitable for use as a vote), please 
speak up.

Meanwhile, we have at least three people who have proposed draft text:

Laura Carlson:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0668.html

Shelley Powers:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0677.html

Ian Hickson:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0686.html

During the course of the discussion, it was mentioned that the position 
of the editor has changed materially in a way germane to this topic 
since the latest published working draft.  Accordingly, I have requested 
that a new draft be published:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0706.html

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 12:09:27 UTC