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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 07:17:10 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTiniIKSkVCLoNEm28vHQ4p2ATjshORKKfE1-3kk4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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
> objections?

I can rewrite them to include the additional information I've sent to
the list.  Ping me before the poll comes up if I forget about it.

> 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.

This doesn't answer my question.  Allow me to make it more direct.  Do
I hurt my case by merely authoring a change proposal and then not
repeating my objections in the poll?

Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 14:18:05 UTC

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