- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:44:13 -0400
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- CC: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Janina Sajka wrote: > Sam Ruby writes: >> Janina Sajka wrote: >>> I would have no problem changing "commit" to "propose" as you >>> suggest below. I expect PF would not object to that. PF certainly >>> does not intend to assert authority to edit any other Wg's >>> documents. While the intent of a joint TF is to develop mutually >>> satisfactory solutions, it is still the exclusive responsibility >>> of each Wg to agree on and effect its own edits. >> That works for me. >> >> I believe that what exists in the proposal is based on input I >> provided prior to the two new co-chairs coming on board. My >> concern was (and is) that the worst case scenario is one where one >> side (not participating in the TF) simply says "no", and the other >> side (participating in the task force) simply says "because I said >> so". >> >> My input was that the TF needs to have at least one person who is >> ready, willing, and able to edit if necessary; even if the >> universal hope is that such is never necessary. It has been my >> experience (both elsewhere, and so far in the history of this WG), >> that the existence of such a person makes both sides more >> reasonable. > > I agree with your strategic analysis. > > But this person would be empowered to commit proposed spec language > by virtue of being a member of the HTML Wg, and not as a member of > any joint TF. And given that the only effective barrier to entry to becoming a member of the HTML WG is agreeing to the patent policy, I don't see that as an issue. > Janina - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 13:44:54 UTC