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

Re: the MathML comments

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:17:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4AF60026.4030107@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, 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>
Sam Ruby On 09-11-07 22.52:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:


> 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.


The main problem was probably the WG related conference that were 
going on along side the normal asynchronous work of the group, 
which normally is held as *the* channel of the group.

For those of us (myself at least) who only followed the main 
channel of the group, it was a little surprising to learn that the 
MathML response caused such confusion. After all, there were 
several responses in the list.  And discussion happened in the 
list on other subjects as well, were participants of the 
conference took part. This might have given  e.g. myself the 
perhaps false impression that the list had more attention from the 
conference participants than it in reality had.

Irony: Shelley asked the list for links to pages that showed what 
went on in the conference. In the end, it turns out that the 
participants (understandably) low attention to the list made them 
surprised w.r.t. what happened in the WG ...

> 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.

There were at 3 individuals which responded to the letter in list 
(1 Opera, 1 Mozilla, + Philip Tailor). The report itself was even 
authored by two independent persons. The were 38 hours for 
collecting comments. Could have been worse.

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


72 hours sounds OK to me, though. Just make clear that the rule is 
valid also during W3 conferences. Or else, I think we could still 
hear complaints.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 23:18:37 UTC

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