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

Re: the MathML comments

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:49:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4AF56CDF.2000404@intertwingly.net>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> I commend Shelley for taking the initiative to send comments to MathML
> WG. She stepped up to the Chair's call for volunteers. [1]. She
> drafted a response and gathered input from the HTMLWG [2]. She
> provided high quality feedback on schedule [3]. Shelley effectively
> and responsibly produced an excellent caliber of work; completed it
> thoroughly and accurately; paid attention to detail; contributed to
> the improvement of the quality of the services provided by this
> working group.
> Outstanding work Shelley. Your strong dedication and commitment to
> excellence is very much needed and appreciated.
> The HTMLWG currently lacks a formal procedure to respond other working
> groups. Perhaps the Chairs could draft a procedure to clarify a formal
> process if something different is needed (formal consensus in lieu of
> lazy consensus).


At the present time, this working group does not seek consensus on 
comments that are provided to other working groups.  In addition to 
everything Laura said above, I will ask that until or unless we decide 
to start requiring consensus on comments that nobody treat statements 
such as the one that Maciej made as anything other than a simple 
statement of fact.

Speaking only for myself: I generally don't appreciate being on the 
receiving end of a "consensus position of group XYZ" where I have not 
been given an opportunity to participate in the discussion that lead up 
to the position.  I much prefer a dialog.  That being said, there is an 
existing culture in various groups of the W3C, and we need to understand 
and respect that.  If a group requires a consensus position from us, it 
makes sense for us to honor that preference.  If a group does not 
require such but finds it valuable for us to collect up comments then we 
should take that route.

As this is something that I see us doing again, and without further 
discussing what was said previously, can we agree on a simple factual 
statement that we accompany such responses going forward, such as:

"These comments were collected and reviewed by the working group, but 
were not formally assessed for consensus."

> Thanks.
> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby

> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0806.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0132.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0169.html
> On 11/6/09, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is no procedure in place when it comes to how we comment to
>> other groups. I was operating under a deadline, which I needed to
>> meet, because I have another task deadline, also for this group, also
>> before November 11th. As it was, I also put the comments out for
>> review, and modified the comments accordingly.
>> I'm sorry that some members of this group were disappointed with the
>> comments we developed for MathML, and that I went ahead and sent the
>> comments to the Math WG. I would like to remind this group that no one
>> was willing to step forward to do any comments before I and Joe
>> volunteered.
>> I am disappointed that one of the co-chairs of this group degenerated
>> my effort to the Math WG at the TPAC meeting this week [1].
>> Shelley
>> [1]  http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20091107#l-21
Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 12:50:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:02 UTC