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

Re: minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 21:15:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4A19F138.2080901@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 24, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>> I agree that it was a lopsided vote.
>>>>> I agree that there was an intent to publish as a Note, but disagree with
>>>>> any implication that it constituted a commitment or a decision to
>>>>> ultimately
>>>>> publish as a Note, in particular I disagree that it was a decision that
>>>>> would need to be reversed.
>>>>> I disagree that the conference call is "informal", but I agree that
>>>>> further discussion is warranted.
>>>> Let me put it this way. I think if we want to make a decision as a WG not
>>>> to
>>>> publish any further Working Drafts, and not to aim to publish as a Note,
>>>> I
>>>> think that decision should be taken as seriously as the decision to
>>>> publish
>>>> in the first place.
>>>> I think discussion on a single conference call, where abandoning the
>>>> Design
>>>> Principles document was not even an agenda item (though other Design
>>>> Principles discussion was), and when there had been no mailing list
>>>> discussion of doing so, does not constitute an adequate process for
>>>> assessing consensus.
>>> I agree with Maciej. Last decision that was taken with regards to the
>>> design principles was to do more than just publish it as a WD. If
>>> we're going to reverse that decision then that requires more than just
>>> a discussion on a conference call. Especially since this WG is
>>> chartered to allow asynchronous participation in all decisions.
>> I dislike having to respond to a strawman.  I especially dislike having to
>> do it twice.
>> I'll respond to you the same way I responded to Maciej[1]:
> Sorry, I suspect I misunderstood you then. I took
> "The general perception I got from the call was that this document was
> useful as a historical guide, and as a Working Draft, and it should
> remain as such as some people find it helpful (others may not), but
> should not progress any further."
> as that there was a desire to just keep the design document as an
> informal document that people may or may not follow at their will. I
> apologize if this was the wrong interpretation?

I do believe that that was the desire of the people who were able to 
make last week's call and who chose to express an opinion.

> I further took "But as you were not present on the call, no decision
> was made.  David Singer volunteered to get with you." as that the
> reason that no decision was taken on the call was the fact that maciej
> was not present, and had he been present a decision might have been
> taken. Again, I'm sorry if I read too much into what you were saying.
>> No assertion was made that consensus was determined on that conference
>> call.  If you want to take exception to what actually was said or done,
>> feel free to do so.
> I definitely understood that no decision was made. Instead I thought
> that we were in the process of starting a discussion about weather to
> officially adopt the design principles or not and I wanted to express
> my viewpoint as part of that discussion.

Now I see where I was unclear.

Understanding that not everybody can make the phone calls, and that not 
everybody can keep up with this mailing list, the hope is that most 
people who wish to participate can do one or the other, or at least read 
the minutes of the calls.  For major decisions, like this one, it is my 
intent to make people aware of the opportunity to express their 
viewpoints via the announcement of the meetings and the minutes that 
come out of the meeting.

You are correct that had people not objected, starting after *next* 
week's meeting, I would have tried to figure out how best to "park" the 
document.  But before doing so, I wanted to give everybody on this list 
an opportunity to comment, and furthermore, I specifically wanted to get 
the input of Maciej.

At the present time, we do not have consensus on "parking" (whatever 
that might mean), we do not have consensus on publishing without a 
disclaimer (nor do we even have a draft disclaimer to consider), and we 
do not have consensus on publishing with a disclaimer.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 01:16:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:47 UTC