- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:31:24 -0600
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
>> My own view is that everyone should have a fair chance to make their case before we resort to entering any decisions by default. While we are not granting infinite time limits, we have tried pretty hard to give anyone who wants to make a case, pro or con, the full opportunity to do so. > > I agree that you have, and agree that your current methods are roughly > workable. I'm specifically countering Shelley's assertions that your > current method is bad, and Sam's apparent implication that it's > reasonable to expect someone to write a detailed summary of the > justifications for the current spec text (that is, a zero-edits > proposal) before a change proposal has been written. > My only assertion is the Decision Process does not incorporate an extended timeline for counter-proposals based purely on the fact that someone didn't want to write one until they see the initial proposal. If you all think the spec is good, you shouldn't be reluctant to provide a rationale for why its good. If a rationale has been given in the past, I imagine that a counter proposal can consist of a copy and paste of the prior rationale, or even just a link to the rationale. If no rationale has been given, then frankly the rationale for the spec text is far overdue, and there's no harm in providing it. In fact, giving the rational may help the group to discover that they have misunderstood the spec text, as has happened with the hidden element. Neither case requires waiting on me for me to write my change proposal first. We all have time during the discussion to update our change proposals, based on what others say. The current Decision Process does not have a step in it that allows for a counter-proposal, triggered by a person submitting a Change Proposal. As Sam stated, if you have time problems, are sick, the work is complex and takes times, the co-chairs do have the leverage to give an extension in time. But, as Sam also stated, your just wanting to see what I write, first, is not a legitimate reason for an extension (correct me if I'm wrong on these, Sam). This isn't about winning or losing. This is about ensuring that the HTML5 spec is the best it can be. > ~TJ > Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:31:56 UTC