Re: [html] Summary draft

On Sep 14, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Just for the record:
>> On Sep 14, 2009, at 6:33 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>>> We already know that *you* think that it is never appropriate to  
>>> use @summary, and
>>> your opinion is duly and publicly noted.  However, the 'consensus'
>>> position is that it has both a use and appropriateness that goes  
>>> beyond
>>> your opinion.
>> We haven't assessed a Working Group consensus on the appropriate  
>> uses for summary. It's clear to me from observation that opinions  
>> vary (and it's not a case of Ian vs. everyone else).
>>>
>>>> It is difficult to evaluate proposals without understanding what
>>>> problems they are trying to solve.
>>>
>>> <problem>THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THE TEXT  
>>> YOU HAVE
>>> INSERTED INTO THE SPECIFICATION.</problem>
>>> It is text that has been authored by one person (you), as opposed  
>>> to a
>>> draft text, which Cynthia has floated, that has been authored by and
>>> commented upon by many people, and more closely reflects the  
>>> consensus
>>> position of the communities affected.
>> It's not clear at this time whether Cynthia's text reflects  
>> consensus of the HTML Working Group. It does seem clear to me that  
>> a number of people like Cynthia's text better than Ian's, and vice  
>> versa. Overall comment: John, please recall that you personally  
>> signed off on the text that is currently in the Editor's Draft. You  
>> are free to change your mind, and express a preference for  
>> different text. But I suggest that you dial down the outrage over  
>> text that you at one time personally reviewed and approved. How  
>> about a little less all-caps and "one person" rhetoric? (I do  
>> appreciate your work to more clearly express the issues and file  
>> bugs.)
>
> Point of order: the only thing John agreed to was to withdraw his  
> draft "at this time", with the expectation that the discussions "are  
> on-going and will continue" and that this action "*did not* close  
> Issue 32, and
> it is important for all to realize that point."
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0182.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0362.html

To clarify further: I'm not saying that John can't disagree. What I  
asked him to do is tone down his rhetoric. I picked my wording above  
deliberately. I did not say that John agreed with what was in the  
spec, but rather that he "signed off on", "reviewed" and "approved"  
the current spec text. This is in fact true.

Here's some past communication relevant to this:

1) I suggested a 5-point compromise proposal on the summary attribute,  
based on discussion with John:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0178.html>

2) Responding to my proposal, John said, among other things, "As one  
member of HTML WG, I voice my support", and "To be formal, I support  
this initiative fully."
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0182.html

3) I privately showed the current spec text to John before Ian checked  
it in, talked it over with him by phone, and confirmed with him that  
it fulfilled the 5-point compromise proposal, and that he personally  
found it acceptable.

4) In a blog post, John portrayed the spec change as an extremely  
positive move, and noted that "No-one is likely to get everything they  
want, and it’s important to understand that this is the nature of  
compromise."
<http://john.foliot.ca/talismans-active-listening-and-a-half-time-show/>

It's true that in his later emails, John backed away a little from his  
initial wholehearted approval.

None of this rules out suggesting further spec changes. But I cannot  
square these past actions with presenting the current spec text as the  
work of "one person ([Ian])" or "biased in its 'suggestions'".

Note: none of this should stop John from suggesting further  
improvements. But I think comments on the state of the current spec  
text should acknowledge John's role in creating it.

Regards,
Maciej