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 16:52:29 -0500
Message-ID: <4AF5EC1D.9040101@intertwingly.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:49:35 -0800, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 
> wrote:
>> 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."
> 
> The problem in this meeting was that we did not even know that the HTML 
> WG made those comments and what the contents of the comments were. I 
> think most people in the room hadn't had a chance yet to look at the 
> comments but they were already submitted to the Math WG on behalf of the 
> HTML WG. It was quite confusing.

Lets recap.  Paul Cotton made a call for volunteers on the mailing list 
on October 15th, mentioning a closing date of November 11th:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0475.html

This was discussed a number of times in the teleconference:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009OctDec/0005.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009OctDec/0010.html

The mathml comments were developed and discussed on the public-html 
mailing list:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/thread.html#msg132

And the final results were posted on the mailing list.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0169.html

So, on one hand, I have zero sympathy for any active participant in the 
working group who chose to attend a session on MathML who may claim to 
have been unaware of this work or making any statement other than the 
fact that while they personally did not have a chance to review it, 
sufficient others have for this to have been sent on behalf of the 
working group.

On the other hand, having been posted for the first time on a Wednesday 
afternoon/evening, and sent on behalf of the HTML WG on a Friday morning 
is simply not enough time.

Let me be clear here: I don't want this to be a witch hunt: the process 
was unclear, and that is the fault of the co-chairs.  What is done is 
done; what I want to know is what changes to the process should we 
consider going forward.  Guidelines from the ASF may help as a starting 
point: we require that everybody have had a chance to review the 
material (which requires public notification and a minimum 72 hour 
period for review, and generally more if we know that there is a 
significant holiday or event or any individual indicates in advance a 
conflict) AND for a minimum of three independent individuals to have 
done so.

Would a set of rules, perhaps even these ones, have helped in this context?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 21:53:24 UTC

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