- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:21:43 -0400
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, William Loughborough <wloughborough@gmail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote: >>> Either/Or. Either we continue these endless discussions, or we do the >>> work. You asked for someone to take this on. I have expressed >>> willingness. I'm also willing to step aside if someone else from the >>> accessibility community wants to do this work. Or I'll work with >>> others, with the understanding that we're making this change in the >>> next couple of weeks, so this group can move on. Because we need to >>> move on. >> I agree that it is rubber meets the road time. >> >> My intent of +1 wasn't to suggest that there be only one option, but merely >> to agree that what Ian described was an option. It was my intent to convey >> what Ian said in my *first* option, but clearly he said it better than I >> did. >> >> On Thursday's HTML WG call, a reasonable number of PFWG people attended. On >> Friday morning I posted my opinion that "I don't wish to design and build >> the poll but I hope that my initial draft is enough to get this work >> moving." wasn't enough. That was after seeing the reaction of people like >> yourself, Ian, Maciej, and Laura. Since that time I have been in contact >> with a number of PFWG members, via IM and phone. I believe that I have a >> good working relationship with them, and I do believe that they now have a >> good understanding of how to proceed, and that that understanding is >> basically what I outlined in my 5 (and now 6ish) options. >> >> The current state in Ian's current draft is that @summary is conformant but >> obsolete. The proposed wording for a straw poll isn't complete. I fully >> agree with Maciej's response[1]. >> >> Shelley, you've come the closest I have seen to a coherent counter >> proposal[2]. I do mean that as a compliment, and I hope that you take it as >> such. >> >> Meanwhile, let me be quite clear: If you believe that you can work with Ian, >> please do so. In fact, I will go further and say that that is my >> preference. For many, that's all they need to do. > > No, I cannot work with Ian. I'm not even going to indulge in a phony > pretense that I can. > >> However, if you feel that the option of working with Ian has ceased to be >> productive, don't let that stop you. In fact, I encourage you to directly >> make edits to one or more drafts based on the input you have heard and any >> opinions you might have. Feel free to use the cvs facilities of the W3C. >> If you would prefer something closer to the source that Ian edits, while I >> don't have access to the WHATWG SVN, I do have a full git clone[3] that you >> can pull from and merge and establish a branch etc. It is up to date[4]. >> You can include Manu's work, or not, as you see fit. We can vote on them >> together or separately, as people see fit. >> > > I have made my proposition for a vote. If this option makes it to a > vote, and the group votes for it, I would be willing to make changes > to the document that incorporate what I wrote in the proposal, and > that also incorporates what William wrote, because the summary > attribute isn't explained well. > > However, I have been told in a private email, which you received a > copy of Sam, that my offer to follow through on the edit, if consensus > was met, was just adding to noise, and not being helpful. If you are talking about the same email that I am (sent at Sat, 26 Jul 2009 04:56:31 GMT), I read that suggestion differently. In fact, quite the opposite of how you read it. I read it as "don't wait". > That this was throwing my offer of help back into my face was a given. Fine. > >> From observation of you over the past several years, I don't believe that >> any of the above is beyond your abilities. If you have any questions, feel >> free to contact me either publicly or privately (my preference is publicly, >> as it will benefit all, and limit the times I have to repeat myself). But >> for those not as familiar with the Unix developers toolchain, simply >> directly make edits to a document (Ian's source, or the published w3c doc, I >> care not), and make available both the original that you edited and your >> updated copy, and I will either personally do the diffs and integration and >> publishing, or will find someone who will. > > Though rusty with some of the technology, I could probably muddle my > way through. And I appreciate your offer of help. I think, though, > that my participation is actually making things worse. It's pretty > obvious by now, even before that email, that. > > Time for me to move on, and let you folks do you thing. Again, I'll > help folks make edits. You don't have to be a member of the group to > help folks make edits. I think that if you were to publish a document with the edits that you suggested and solicit and respond to feedback from William and others that that would have the potential for moving things forward significantly, and I would do everything I can to help you. > Shelley - Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 16:22:26 UTC