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

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:52:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4A7375C7.4040602@intertwingly.net>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Manu Sporny wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Unless I'm misreading, the number of poll options have gone from 5 to 3
>> (I very much like the direction this is taking!).  I base this on the
>> following emails (people are welcome to correct me if I got this wrong)...
>>
>> Dropping 2:
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0938.html
> 
> Just to make sure we're aligned, Sam:
> 
> 1. Do you agree with the list of reasons[1] (the reasoning) for the
>    decision to drop poll option #2?
> 2. Do you believe the list of expectations[1] are in line with your
>    intentions to proceed regarding the publishing of alternate FPWDs?

Short answer: yes to both.  Longer answer:

> Just to be crystal clear on the reasons that I'm asking for option #2 to
> be removed from the poll (as well as the rest of the options):
> 
> * They are separate issues to the heartbeat requirement.

+1

> * Actively demonstrating that there is no ill will toward having Ian's
>   document published as part of a heartbeat requirement.

+1

> * Actively demonstrating the desire to see the HTML5 spec continue to
>   move forward.

+1

> * FPWD for Mike's document and HTML5+RDFa should be handled
>   separately, as the issues will be more manageable if they are
>   separated and not discussed under the pressure of a heartbeat
>   requirement.

+1

In addition to stating +1 above, I will note that I specifically 
recommended that Mike and John consider the above.

> By doing this, I am setting the following expectations. I expect the
> following things to happen in the next month or two:
> 
> * Sam and the rest of HTML WG will ensure that Mike's document,
>   HTML5+RDFa, and John Foliot's modifications, are published in some
>   form.

Here is the only place I will waffle, but hopefully you will agree only 
slightly.  Rob had a draft[2] that I was equally committed to, and he 
has since decided to stop pursuing it.  If it turns out that a poll or a 
vote is necessary, and the result is not favorable, then I don't see the 
draft being published as a product of this working group.

If people see that as unfair, and in particular see micro-data as 
getting a free ride as Ben and others appear wont to do, I will point to 
my repeated calls[3] for people to propose such things as a draft which 
does not include micro-data or a draft that includes an appropriate 
disclaimer.

I am committed to giving people the opportunity to produce editors 
drafts, and an opportunity to demonstrate that such are collaborative 
efforts, and an opportunity to be presented for a group decision.

> * FPWD is the only proposed format so far, so that's the
>   expectation as far as document format is concerned.

+1.  It can either be a standalone (independent) draft, or a derived 
work from another draft.  You have demonstrated an ability to produce 
either.

> * If a vote must occur before publication, as was the case for Ian's
>   HTML5 spec, then that is acceptable.

+1.  I will add that given my reading of FPWD, it saddens me that there 
are people who see the right way forward is to deny people the 
opportunity to publish such; it is my clear preference that any effort 
that meets some minimum bar (and I've stated a number of times what I 
consider to be a minimum bar) gets an opportunity to be published as 
such.  And I fully intent to express my (one) vote in such matters as 
long as we are not talking about obvious process abuses such as 
parodies.  That being said, I would be quite willing to go with the 
group if it is clear that my opinion is in the minority.

Last Call is a whole different beast, and for that I will add that I 
don't see it as inevitable that Ian's draft will make it intact to Last 
Call.[4]

> -- manu
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0938.html

[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478665
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0885.html
[4] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/01/16/WHATWG-FAQ
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 22:53:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC