Re: sections removed, current and ongoing

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Shelley Powers <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> These bugs do get copied to the HTML WG email list, if I remember
>>>> correctly, so none of these changes should have been a surprise. Well,
>>>> perhaps details, if people assumed Ian wouldn't agree with the bug
>>>> request.
>>> Bugs do not get copied to the list by default; it only receives emails
>>> when certain fields are changed.
>> They do get copied to *a* list, just not this one.
> Ah, yet another list to follow, except this one has an even lower
> signal-to-noise ratio.  ;_;
>> A lightly filtered list (non-editorial only) can be found here:
>> I assume that what this comes down to is a subjective assessment about what
>> is "major".  That's where everybody on this list can help.  If you see
>> something that is major, please note it on this list (as Shelley recently
>> did for this particular item).
> Can I just go ahead and say that all of the section-removal bugs are
> "major"?  I'm pretty sure I highly disagree with all of them.  I
> *really* don't want to cause the WG all the additional work that
> Issues do, because it's completely unnecessary and rather silly.

The procedure in place was to prevent the seemingly never ending
circular discussions that arise when there is significant disagreement
in the group. Discussions such as that for Microdata, and summary.

It is not "silly" in that it introduces a way of definitely handling conflict.

It is not "silly" in that it counters the growing perception that was
occurring in this group, that only a subset of people here had
influence with the HTML5 author, and the rest of us had no power, no
influence at all.

It is now a formal procedure that guarantees everyone a chance to be
heard, for all arguments to be given, and weighed logically.

It is, frankly, the only path we have now to get this specification
finished, and out the door.

I see nothing silly about this. Nothing silly at all. What I find
silly, is decisions being made in IRC channels.

> just like some discussion before any of them get accepted with nothing
> more than the OP's assertions being heard.  If we had had a normal
> discussion and Hixie still said "Eh, I'm cutting <details>.", I would
> have been fine with it.  I'd still disagree with the decision, but I'd
> at least know that it had been properly considered, which I do not
> feel is happening right now.
> I just don't like the mailing list being completely bypassed by the
> tracking database.  Discussion should happen here, not in the bug
> tracker.

We're told not to clutter up the email lists with these discussions,
to take items that are unlikely to reach lazy consensus through the
formal change proposal. As courtesy, I also made sure my bugs were
cc'd to the group. I will take them a step further, and specifically
send emails detailing my bugs to the email group from now on. But I am
going to continue using the formal change procedure, and suggest
others do the same. There is nothing in this procedure which precludes
discussion in the email list.

As a further courtesy, I will also send an email to the group for any
of my non-editorial bugs.

This isn't specifically directed at you Tab, but I believe many people
were aware of the request to delete the details element. My impression
is,these people just didn't believe Ian would support the request.
Well, so much for assumptions.

Note, though, that many of these sections were added and modified
without any prior discussion in the HTML WG email list. In my opinion,
there is a great deal more openness about how things are managed now,
then has happened in the past.

> ~TJ


Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 17:53:13 UTC