W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2011

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:19:25 -0500
Message-ID: <4EECDD2D.3090702@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
On 12/16/2011 09:59 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> I object to carrying through with that change proposal.
> I will not be writing a concrete and complete counter proposal -- because
> the original bug should ever have been escalated to begin with, and in my
> assessment does not merit continued attention from other members of the
> group nor the W3C Team. We all have more important issues to deal with that
> are genuine priorities that do actually merit our collective time and
> attention, and bugs/comments like this one are a distraction from getting
> work done on those real issues.
> The right way to have dealt with this would have been for the original bug
> to have been judged to be something best left up to editorial discretion.

It is entirely up to members of the working group to determine what 
merits their attention.

If you note the resolution of the underlying bug[1], you will find a 
statement over which reasonable people can disagree.

I encourage people who disagree with the change proposal that we do have 
to actually make a proposal and provide rationale for what they propose.

If you like, submit a proposal that has the rationale "Everything's a 
work in progress" and in that proposal suggest that the spec itself be 
renamed to "HTML Living Standard".

I fully understand that the WHATWG copy of the spec takes a different 
position on this topic that the W3C HTML spec currently does.  I respect 
the fact that the WHATWG spec is internally consistent on this matter. 
I also respect the fact that a member of this Working Group would like 
to see the W3C document to be more internally consistent on this matter.

If that person takes the effort to write a bug, open an issue, and make 
a concrete proposal, then I think we need more discussion on the issue. 
  Not meta discussion about how we should handle issues, but actual 
discussion, ideally on this very list, about the specific resolution of 
the bug in question.

>    --Mike

- Sam Ruby

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13724#c2

> Paul Cotton<Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, 2011-12-12 21:31 +0000:
>>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by December
>>> 10th, 2011, we proceed to evaluate the change proposals that we have
>>> received to date.
>> We did not receive any counter-proposals for ISSUE-177 and therefore the
>> only change proposal we have is:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Oct/0047.html
>> At the current time, the chairs are issuing a call for consensus on this
>> proposal.  If anybody would like to raise an objection during this time,
>> we will require them to accompany their objection with a concrete and
>> complete change proposal.
>> If no objections are raised to this call by December 20th 2011, we will
>> direct the editor to make the proposed change, and will only consider
>> subsequently reopening this issue based on new information and a complete
>> change proposal based on the spec's contents as it exists after this
>> change is applied.
>> /paulc
>> HTML WG co-chair
>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 3:00 PM
>> To: public-html@w3.org LIST
>> Subject: ISSUE-177 ietf-id-wip: Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals
>> 'References to Internet-Drafts should be given as "Work in Progress" per RFC 2026.'
>> The current status for this issue:
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/177
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-177
>> At the present time we have one Change Proposal:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Oct/0047.html
>> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit additional Change Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details), in case anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different change than the specific one in the existing Change Proposals.
>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by December 10th, 2011, we proceed to evaluate the change proposals that we have received to date.
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 18:20:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:46 UTC