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

Re: the MathML comments

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 05:42:09 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0911080342r1159d79fl599ce8ca4c29c45c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Hi all,

On 11/7/09, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> 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.

It was an unfortunate situation.

Per our charter, the HTMLWG primarily conducts its technical work on
this public-html list.

However, I have sympathy for those at TPAC caught off guard.

I also have sympathy for the reviewer who took initiative and did an
outstanding job without a clear procedure in place and was
subsequently met with supportive IRC comments. She performed well
without direction. A true pioneer.

Shelley, as the pioneer in this, your insight on process improvement
would be most valuable going forward in establishing a clear procedure
for reviewing as well as a favorable communication environment. Do you
have suggestions? What could be improved?

Best Regards,
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 11:42:46 UTC

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