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

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:53:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4C05B987.8090801@intertwingly.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 06/01/2010 09:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> On 06/01/2010 08:03 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> Something for people to keep in mind, now -- the chairs don't judge
>>> based on the proposals or counter-proposals, only the objections raised
>>> in the surveys for both. I don't believe this was clearly stated in the
>>> decision process.
>> As previously stated, the chairs are attempting to follow the W3C
>> process[1], and therefore after all attempts at amicable resolution fail,
>> seek to favor proposals that create the weakest objections.
> To be completely specific, are these "weakest objections" you speak of
> *only* the objections given during the survey, or are the various
> proposals counted as objections against each other (when appropriate)?
> I specifically avoided commenting on the polls with an objection to
> the Change Proposals, as I felt that my objections were adequately
> stated in the counter proposals that I helped author.
> If the "objections" are only those that appear in the survey, I will
> in the future avoid putting any effort into counter proposals, and
> save that effort for objecting when the poll comes around instead.
> This would be a bad use of process (it would be just moving the
> counter-proposal phase into the poll objections phase), but I'm
> interested in maximizing the effect of the effort I spend here.

I was going to wait a day or so before I mentioned it again, but you 
recently authored two change proposals which I suggested that you might 
want to augment.

When it comes time for a poll in issues 89 and 92, what URLs should be 
used to identify the change proposals that people are to register their 

As to your question in this email: the primary purpose of proposals is 
to make a case FOR something, i.e., provide rationale.  Clearly stated 
objections contained within a proposal will be considered, but that 
isn't the primary purpose of a proposal.

This is true even for proposals made in response to other proposals 
(i.e., counter-proposals).  The chairs made a decision that uncontested 
content in the spec does not need rationale, but contested material 
does, and that responses to bug reports and proposals are the place to 
provide the rationale.

> ~TJ

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 01:53:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:19 UTC