- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:49:35 -0500
- 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). +1 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