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

Re: Change proposals and objections:

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:07:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4C07FD7E.7080409@intertwingly.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 06/03/2010 02:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> Let me be more specific: what exactly is the following objecting to? What
>> precisely is it advocating, and why?
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0360.html
> It's objecting to the change proposal to remove the idioms section,
> and advocating keeping it.  While I don't exactly provide a bulleted
> list of objections, I was able to parse out 4 salient points from
> Shelley's change proposal, and I addressed each with a dedicated
> paragraph in the Positive and Negative Effects sections.  Should I
> make it more explicit exactly what points each paragraph is
> countering?

That might help, but doesn't address the larger issue.  I encourage you 
to look at: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9792

More specific to this particular proposal: at the present time, there 
has been no formal WG assessment of consenus on the presence or absence 
of the "4.13 Common idioms without dedicated elements" section.

Looking at your change proposal, I don't see a clear case being made for 
keeping the current text.  If, in the course of a survey, somebody 
objects with any specificity any particular subsection asserting that 
the advice in that particular subsection is actively harmful, then that 
objection could very well be treated as stronger than "[for] Some types 
of content... We can offer useful advice... that [is] ... good enough".

Why this content?  Why this advice?  How is it good enough?

You also previously asked "Do I hurt my case by merely authoring a 
change proposal and then not repeating my objections in the poll?".

In this particular case (issue 89): my suggestion is that if you want to 
write a change proposal advocating keeping the current section, you do 
exactly that.

>> The following is slightly better in that one can infer some weak objections,
>> but contains precious little rationale beyond the word "adequate" (which
>> gives the impression of faint praise?) and "to illustrate a *confusing*
>> table" (why is that important to include?):
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0362.html
> I have provided additional reasoning in a reply; I haven't yet
> integrated it into a single page.  It could do with some rewriting to
> make the point more direct.

Again, in this case (issue 92) any additional rationale you can add is 
more likely to be important at this stage than tightening up the objections.

In both cases, this is just advice on how to formulate a change 
proposal, and is based on having reviewed several by this point, and 
seeing what worked well and what didn't work so well.   But it is only 
advice... if you think these proposals are ready as is, then we can 
proceed to a survey.

> ~TJ

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 19:08:12 UTC

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