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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 06:58:22 -0500
Message-ID: <4A1BD95E.4020900@burningbird.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Rob Sayre wrote:
>>   On 5/25/09 9:15 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>> I proposed the following draft disclaimer on May 20 [26] it is also in
>>> the May 21 Teleconference minutes [27]:
>>> “Publication of this document does not constitute endorsement. There
>>> is no working group consensus on the content of these principles but
>>> it was decided that further effort to refine them and gain consensus
>>> was not a productive use of time.”
>> That is totally unacceptable, if you ask me. The existence of 
>> objections does not rule out consensus. Furthermore, you don't waltz 
>> in years after it was first published and declare a lack of consensus 
>> because you showed up.
> Rob, Laura is correct that there was agreement on publishing a FPWD, 
> but not on the content (just like for the HTML5 FPWD).
> BR, Julian
Speaking of someone who waltzed in years after the document was first 
published, but it does seem as if Laura had valid concerns, which she 
backed up with several citations, followed up by suggesting what seemed 
to me to be an equitable solution.

I would say in this thread, her response was much more acceptable than 
the seemingly infinite discussion with various assorted and sundry 
tangents that's now happening.

 From the consensus document that Sam linked, it would seem that not 
having consensus would not hold up publication of a document, but that 
the objections should be addressed, and at a minimum, noted in the 
document. The document did not suggest that objections should be brushed 
aside as inconsequential because some members of this group have a 
problem dealing with disagreement.

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 11:59:13 UTC

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