- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:41:12 -0700
- 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. Adam 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