- From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:14:19 +0900
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, 2009-06-23 19:03 -0500: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > Unlike you and Sam, I'm not paid to waste my time writing material > that I know will be rejected. As far as this working group goes, I think it's clear that any material you might write is not going to be rejected. After he came on as co-chair of the group, Sam outlined a mechanism for having additional/alternative HTML-WG-member-edited drafts move forward for discussion within the group and publication by the group. I know Chris Wilson supports that, and I'd think it'd be safe to say the majority of members of this group also support it. > While you're a gatekeeper I won't play the gam. Hixie is not the gatekeeper for decisions about what gets published by this group. > I will spend my time writing, but it will be in the nature of > formal objections, which cannot be ignored. IMHO, the most useful kind of formal objections are those that take the form of a concrete proposal -- a document with (as Sam as described it), "camera-ready spec text". And I would think that at the point in the publication cycle where resolving formal objections is necessary (document transitions -- e.g., from WD to LC, or LC to CR), the arbitrator responsible for resolving those is very likely to value having concrete proposals or alternative drafts to consult when evaluating them. That said, I'm not saying the objections necessarily need to reach that point (or should). --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 02:14:50 UTC