Re: splits, discussions, and manic behavior

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Laura Carlson wrote:
>> Maciej wrote:
>>> I'm not sure all the splits were done with sincerity of intent 
>>> (rather, some of them seem to have done just to prove a point).
>> Ian what was your true intent? Were you trying to prove a point?  If so 
>> what was it?
> I was (and still am) trying to follow the process, and trying to resolve 
> the bugs Shelley filed in a manner consistent with the chairs' decision on 
> Microdata. I am baffled to learn that Shelley's actual admitted goal is 
> not to improve the spec or to have me resolve the bugs, but just to file 
> issues [1], 

Unfair.  Shelley's stated goal is to make a proposal, have a discussion, 
submit alternatives, and resolve this with a finite end.  This goal is 
not mutually exclusive with improving the spec.

> despite her complaining over the past few weeks that I have 
> not been resolving her bugs [2] [3].

Again, the delays that she noted are a separate issue -- and are not in 
any way inconsistent with a desire to improve the spec.  In the case of 
bug 8379 [1], we have a bug which was opened in November, closed as 
WONTFIX in January, with essentially no technical rationale provided by 
the editor.

> All the recent splits and unsplits were done in line with the bugs: where 
> people had commented on the proposals I tried to take their input into 
> account, just like Shelley's; where they had not, I assumed that the issue 
> was mostly uncontroversial. Where people objected, I reverted the changes 
> as soon as possible. This is consistent both with the process I have been 
> asked to follow and with how I've handled bugs in the past.
> I apologise for any confusion, and welcome specific guidance on how to 
> handle similar bugs in the future [4] [5] [6].

Ok then, then let's discuss bug 8379. [1]

For whatever reason (neither your fault, nor Shelley's) the request to 
remove the details element did not attract sufficient discussion.  Your 
position (as of 2010-01-08) was that you thought the removal would be 
uncontroversial -- a statement I will take on face value.  That clearly 
turned out not to be the case.

At the present time the state of the bug is WONTFIX.

The process[2] requires an editor's response to state a rationale for 
the change or lack of change.  At the present time, the rationale on 
this bug reads as follows:

"Rationale: Based on the volume of objection to this change, I've put 
the <details> element back."

In my opinion, that's sufficient rationale for REOPEN, but not for WONTFIX.

I can tell you that if that were the rationale cited in a change 
proposal, the chairs would flatly reject the change proposal.  The 
intent of the process requirement was to solicit an editor's response 
which enumerates the technical rationale for the topic in question.

 From my point of view, we are either going to need this part of the 
process to be followed, or we will need to adjust the process.

- Sam Ruby


Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 21:58:35 UTC