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

Re: the MathML comments

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:58:00 -0800
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>
Message-id: <C68DE0DC-37FF-419C-B059-41F858410DFF@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Nov 7, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> 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.

In addition to two days being a short time in general, WG members who  
were attending TPAC were likely not fully caught up public-html email  
that was sent during the TPAC week. I have sympathy for the claim of  
being unaware of the contents of the comments because I was myself  
unaware, despite being fully caught up on email right before TPAC. I  
believe the concern of the people in the MathML session was not that  
something untoward happened, but merely that they were unclear on what  
had in fact happened.

> 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?

I think it would have.

Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 01:58:39 UTC

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