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

Re: Change proposal for ISSUE-56

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:20:01 +0900
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100616062000.GA53976@sideshowbarker>
Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, 2010-06-15 22:40 -0700:

> ISSUE-56 was raised in error by Michael(tm) Smith based on a
> misunderstanding of Roy's messages to the working group.

Just for the record: No, it was not raised in error -- though I
will fully admit I may have personally misunderstood the details
of the actual disagreement.

Not that it really matters at this point, and again, just for the
record: It was raised because we had a clear disagreement among
some members for the group about something, and there was a
request at some point to escalate it to an issue. Which is exactly
what happened.

The issue description was an attempt to capture some brief
statement about what the actual disagreement was, as I understood
it. If it's inaccurate or misleading, it's likely due to the fact
that I put in in there by proxy, instead of it being added by the
people who actually disagreed with what was in the spec in regard
to this (of which I was never one, btw).

FWIW, I very rarely (or ever) do that any more, because of just
the problem illustrated here: Raising an issue on behalf of
whoever else by proxy can result in telephone-game confusion about
the actual details. Especially when it's not an issue I personally
agree with.

> To lend even more credence to this rationale, I quote from the very
> same email message [2] written by Roy that Michael(tm) Smith cited in
> the description of ISSUE-56.  This quote was omitted from the
> description of ISSUE-56 for reasons unknown to me:

You and me both. I certainly did not intentionally omit anything
essential. I just tried to put something that documented what the
core of the disagreement was, as I understood. Perhaps I was not
successful at doing that, and perhaps I did misunderstand some
details. But there certainly always was (and still is) a
disagreement here that needs to be resolved.


P.S. I personally agree fully with the actual changes you propose, FWIW.

Michael(tm) Smith
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 06:20:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:03 UTC