Re: the MathML comments

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:29:06 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> I would say this is the proper venue to state that before asking for
>> volunteers to review other specifications for the group, the group
>> formalize a procedure. One that can also adapt to immediate deadlines,
>> and disinterested WG members.
>
> Is it important that we provide feedback to other groups that have
> some sort of "Official HTML WG feedback" stamp? Or is it enough that
> anyone can send feedback as a HTML WG member?
>
> I'll note that mozilla has no such thing as a "official mozilla
> position" on matters of standard. (I made the mistake once of assuming
> that there was concensus within even the Mozilla Corporation on a spec
> issue, but quickly found out that there were people of dissenting
> opinion).
>
> I think the procedure that you followed in gathering feedback for the
> MathML WG was excellent. And as long as it wasn't claimed that it was
> the WGs official position but rather feedback from a group of WG
> members then I can only wish the same procedure is followed in the
> future as to allow similarly high quality feedback.

Personally I would prefer if the MathML WG was in the loop in the  
discussion instead of first having a discussion and then someone  
reformatting the comments and sending them to the MathML WG.

With the procedure we had now, there's a risk some comments weren't  
actually sent. Some comments were rephrased and thus there's a risk they  
were mischaracterizing the original intention. The comments dropped their  
association with who made the comment, which makes followup harder. Boris  
addressed one of my comments, but his email wasn't sent to the MathML WG,  
so the MathML WG might not see it. If they did, they could just concur  
with Boris.

Now, I don't want to blame Shelley for anything, I understand that she was  
asked to do this, and hadn't she taken the initiative to write initial  
comments then I probably wouldn't have bothered doing the review I did. So  
thank you Shelley.

 From here, maybe we can give the MathML WG a pointer to the discussion  
that was held so they can see Boris followup and the original comments  
(and reply to them if they so choose). Going forward, I would prefer if we  
used the procedure we used here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/thread.html#msg161


Cheers,
-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 10:51:28 UTC