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

Re: Change proposal for ISSUE-56

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:41:12 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinVcyK0dtPgOKrR3UfoLuovCtu-AK3ymYXsP8da@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On who's behalf did you raise the issue?  I had assumed Roy because
you quoted his email.


On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
> 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.
>  --Mike
> P.S. I personally agree fully with the actual changes you propose, FWIW.
> --
> Michael(tm) Smith
> http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 06:47:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC