Re: Why I don't attend the weekly teleconference (Was: Input on the agenda)

Shelley Powers <>, 2009-06-23 19:03 -0500:

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Ian Hickson<> 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).


Michael(tm) Smith

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 02:14:50 UTC