W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: The Canvas 2D API split

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:52:45 -0800
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <B860C406-C763-4899-9851-AC0A58E8C5AA@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>

On Jan 11, 2010, at 8:33 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> We have to disagree, then.
> Right now, I see two proposals, one that was created before we had a
> procedure in place. The whole purpose of the procedure was to manage
> disagreement, and allow for multiple proposals or counter-proposals.
> If the initial proposal creators drop their proposal, we're still
> faced with a new change proposal: one put forth by Ian. He has to go
> through this process the same as the rest of the team. He is not above
> the procedures of this group, don't you agree?

There is a defined process for requesting changes, for escalating to  
issues, and for proposing new First Public Working Draft publications.  
I am expecting Ian, you and everyone else to follow that process.

> The Issue Tracker is the only way to track an issue, assign a
> responsibility, and ensure something has not fallen through the
> cracks, like the initial 2D Canvas split did.
> How else are we supposed to track assignments, responsibilities, and
> due dates, Maciej?

Tracker actions are the right way to track assignments and  
responsibilities with a due date, which are not covered by issues,  
bugs or calls for consensus. An action does not need to be associated  
with an issue. However, we normally get someone's sign-off before  
assigning them an action with a due date. Thus I haven't filed an  
action on Doug or Eliot since I have not had a chance to touch base  
with either of them.

On Jan 11, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> That was NOT appropriate for you to close the issue. This was an abuse
> of your position as co-chair.
> You acted just as unilaterally as Ian did. What good to have this
> group, this procedure, any of this, if you and Ian continue acting
> unilaterally.

You took the unilateral action of raising an issue without following  
the group's process, after being advised that it was not correct  
process to do so. It is not up to you to unilaterally change the  
process. But it is up to me to make sure people follow the process. If  
you can't use your tracker access in line with the process, then I  
will ask to have your tracker privileges revoked.

> The Issue didn't mean that the problem would have to go through the
> entire Change Procedure. It was a way to track the problem, and with
> two change proposals, there is a problem. and make sure it's resolved
> in a timely, and transparent, manner.

We don't have room in our process for issues that are not part of the  
Change Proposal procedure. Tracker issues need to be items that are on  
track to

> The other two co-chairs may have agreed with you. Or not. Or they may
> have had an alternative approach that would ensure the issue is
> tracked without having to go through the Issue Tracker.

I am working on an alternate approach to get timely input from Doug  
and Eliot. And we do have a way to track it if necessary, namely  
tracker actions (which we review regularly in the telecons).

> I did, and do, have a legitimate concern, which you brushed aside,
> without any consideration. You have allowed your personal biases to
> lead you to abuse your position.

I'm doing my best to take your concern into account, Shelley. But it  
is not appropriate to violate the process as a way of expressing your  
concern. That is disruptive behavior and it will not be tolerated.

Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 16:53:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC