Re: My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

Shelley Powers wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> John Foliot wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, the state as Sam described it originally has changed.  I 
>>> have submitted an alternative Draft document for consideration;
>>
>>  [snip]
>>
>>> Differences Summary:
>>>
>>>   (regarding @summary)
>>>
>>> 1) added @summary as a conformant attribute of the table element 
>>> (4.9.2.1)
>>>
>>> 2) added explanation of @summary
>>>
>>> 3) provided cautionary message that @summary is under review and may 
>>> be made obsolete (aka class="XXX")
>>>
>>> 3) added example of @summary usage
>>>
>>> 4) removed @summary from 12.1 Conforming but obsolete features
>>>
>>>   (spelling correction)
>>>
>>> 5) Corrected proper spelling of Braille (now written as a formal 
>>> name) at lines 1680 and 12607
>>>
>>>   (housekeeping)
>>>
>>> 6) added my name (with email contact) as an Editor to this Draft
>>>
>>> 7) modified versioning to: Revision: 1.2720-a  (This is a presumption 
>>> - Sam it will probably be necessary to provide proper instruction to 
>>> others who will be branching or forking the specification moving 
>>> forward)
>>>
>>> 8) removed the text: "<p>This specification is also being produced by 
>>> the <a href="http://www.whatwg.org/">WHATWG</a>. The two 
>>> specifications are identical from the table of contents onwards.</p>" 
>>> as this is of course false.
>>>
>>> 9) removed contact information at line 238 for WHAT WG as they likely 
>>> are not interested in supporting this branch of the specification at 
>>> this time
>>>
>>> 10) added mirror location of this Draft at: http://foliot.ca/html5 
>>> and have posted to that location
>>
>> Below, I've attached the differences in 'cvs diff' format.  These are 
>> with respect to cvs revision 1.2720.
>>
>> If a poll still turns out to be necessary (i.e, John does not withdraw 
>> his objection), the results will be published alongside Ian's draft 
>> for people to chose from.  They will be able to see the diffs in 
>> various levels of detail and be able to make an informed decision on 
>> the matter.
> 
> So what you're saying is that the vote will be between two documents

I truly and honestly believe that the vote is between "obsolete" and 
"deprecated"(*), yet we have no less than three people saying that what 
appears to me to be a very clear difference is something that they would 
need more information on in order to express an opinion.

Those that believe that they have a good grasp of how typical people 
will interpret those two phrases need not go any further before 
registering their opinion on which they would prefer.

Those that require more information will have it, and will have it in 
multiple ways.  First they have John's verbal description of his 
changes.  Second, I've posed the actual cvs diff.  Finally, they will 
have access to a full document with all of the changes included so that 
they can evaluate the change in context.

If there is anything that is unclear, both John and Ian have proven to 
be responsive to email.

With all of this data available and access to those making the 
proposals, I do not believe that anybody should be in a position where 
they feel that they can't make an informed decision.

> to determine which will be the Editor Draft from now on?

No, I'm only looking to decide what we will be publishing at this point 
in time.

> Or are you saying both drafts will co-exist on the front page?

My understanding of the issue is that the group is trying to 
provisionally decide between "obsolete" and "deprecated".  That sounds 
like a binary choice to me.  But I may have misunderstood John's 
objection.  Similarly, if you object to only have two options, and 
intend to express a preference for publishing both side by side, simply 
object at this time, and I will add a third option to the poll.  This 
offer is open to anyone.

But until I hear such an objection, my current plans are to proceed with 
a poll as to which of the two documents to publish at this time.

> Does the vote also 
> encompass adding John formally as a co-editor, too?

I have no idea what formally means in this context.  I guess that if a 
document ends up being placed on the W3C site which includes John's name 
as an editor, he is certainly entitled able to make factually true 
statements about that document's existence.

I will note that no matter how this goes, John is under no obligation to 
continue to participate (though it goes without saying that he not only 
is welcome to do so, he is positively encouraged to do so).  I also hope 
that he will share with others his experiences he had with the process.

>> My intent is to allow both to make changes, either editorial (e.g. the 
>> spelling of Braille) or substantive (possibly towards either 
>> clarifying or closing the differences between the two approaches).  
>> Either will be able to select individual diffs to include from the 
>> other if they so chose (e.g., if Ian makes unrelated changes, John may 
>> elect to pick them up).
> 
> Is this changing all coming about before a vote or after?

I'm going to operate under the assumption that we are all adults here. 
If somebody notes a spelling mistake, and that is corrected before the 
final publishing, I'm OK with that.  Or, if you happen to (for example) 
notice something that either missed that needs to be corrected, I'm OK 
with that too.

If, on the other hand, if after the vote begins, either attempt to 
remove the class=XXX box that indicates that this is controversial, I 
will simply proceed with the last revision before this change is made.

But, to be honest, I'm not all that worried about it.

- Sam Ruby

(*) If you prefer, you can chose to vote based on Ian's taken on the issue:

   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090604#l-948

Or John's (scroll to the bottom):

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0080.html

As for me, I have no interest in creating push polls.  To my eyes, even 
John's description of his changes are suspect as they are express his 
interpretation of his changes as seen through the lens of his personal 
experiences.

Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 19:56:08 UTC