Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-05-21

Larry Masinter wrote:
> 
> I am not satisfied with the Sam's suggested "Process for Proposals", as it
> is at odds with the W3C process, and subject to manipulations that are
> inconsistent with a transparent open standards process.

Any process is subject to manipulations.  That's why we have chairs, 
domain leaders, etc.  If you believe that I have been other than 
transparent and open, I ask that you say so now.  As to being 'at odds 
with the W3C process'... while I will grant that this working group is 
operating in a novel and unique way, and has done so since well before I 
assumed co-chairmanship, I can find nothing in the W3C process 
documentation that would support such a claim.

Meanwhile, Ian has authored quite a body of text, and while not formally 
assessed, it is my expectation that the majority (and perhaps even the 
overwhelming majority) will meet with consensus.

The question I would like to address is how do we deal with the sections 
that nobody has been willing to write.  My feeling is that we give 
people ample opportunity to do so, and if none take advantage of that 
opportunity, then those unwritten sections simply aren't included.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 14:10:18 UTC