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 13:25:20 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0911081125v412f17d7t81e5d76a70b8a12d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Hi Shelley,

> I think I missed the supportive IRC comments. Too bad, I would have
> liked to see these.

Sorry, that was a typo. It should have read unsupportive IRC comments.

> Forgive my bluntness, but this was less about procedure and more about
> the divisive politics that has marred any effort of this group.

I don’t know if discussing the subject of divisive politics in this
venue would be productive. I will leave that to the Chairs' judgment
as to if they want to lead a discussion on that topic.

>> 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?
>
> Thank you for your kind words, Laura, but I don't have anything
> particularly new or innovative to add to this debate.

Oh but you do, Shelley.

> As it was, the group had something to discuss with the MathML at the
> meeting. If we had sent the comments after, most of the discussion at
> the meeting probably have revolved around, "Can we expect comments
> from the HTML WG?"

This is true. Thank you for pointing out that very important
consequence of your hard work.

> The only intention with the MathML comments was to ensure that
> _something_ came from this group to the Math WG: both as a sign of
> respect for the Math WG accomplishment, and hopefully provide some
> useful feedback.

Yes, those are two very positives outcomes of your efforts.

> As for going forward:
>
> -Provide a calendar of commitments that don't fit into the issue
> tracker that would help keep people informed of what deliverable is
> due when. Then it's up to the members to ensure they have time to
> respond if they're interested.
>
> -Add the notes to the bottom of the comments emails, as per Sam's note.
>
> -Support some minimum 72 hour window, as minimum for comments. Note,
> though, that there are times when supporting a minimum length of time
> could mean nothing is delivered. This group has to determine which is
> worse.
>
> -We could also establish rules about when such deliveries aren't made,
> but I find that arbitrary. TPAC comes once a year, and if we stress
> holiday times -- which holidays? This is an international group, from
> many countries and faiths.

All excellent suggestions, which I hope, will be taken seriously and
incorporated into a new procedure.

Thank you Shelley.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 19:26:02 UTC

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