- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:49:16 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/11/2011 08:33 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Mar 11, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> What we have said to date is that nobody should assume that we will >> look at anything other than the Change Proposal and objections >> presented. In more recent decisions, we have tried to hold more >> closely to that principle, but we do allow people to post their >> objections to www-archive or public-html and reference them via a >> URI. > > That's incredibly annoying. Is the list discussion considered or > not? The selection and timing of straw polls is arbitrary at best > and certainly not aligned with the free time of respondents. The > commentary on list should be wrapped up and referenced as part of the > poll, just like it is done in other W3C groups. The purpose of change proposals is to get people who care about an issue an opportunity to do exactly that: wrap up and reference everything that is needed for a poll. At a minimum, we give everybody a full month to produce change proposals. Generally, this works out to be much more than that. As to polls, they run for a minimum of a week. I am familiar with other organizations where 72 hours is considered sufficient. > ....Roy - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 12 March 2011 01:49:49 UTC