- From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:08:20 +0200
- To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, connolly@w3.org, chris.wilson@microsoft.com, www-archive@w3.org
HI Mike, I think the reason you're having such difficulty communicating here, is you're not relating your concrete opinions about this issue to the broader principles of the WG and the W3C. I sympathize with you when you lament how much of your time you're spending responding to these emails, but I have to wonder why you're even entering into this discussion. This thread started as a conversation between Dan and I: a conversation that had completely ended until Shawn and then you reignited it. While I think everyone in the WG welcomes your enthusiasm — it’s great to have a staff contact take such a close interest in the daily activities of the WG — you're clearly overstepping your bounds in suggesting the WG wants you to delete these issues from the issue- tracker. What the WG wants from you is to dutifully serve as a staff contact to the W3C, to serve as a liaison between the WG and the W3C and to help us all understand the procedures within which we're supposed to work. Your intervention in this thread has accomplished quite the opposite. It is less clear to me now, after your intervention, what policies you think you're enforcing or what you think your role is here than before you intervened. The WG certainly has disagreements over these issues (again these are issues that just didn't get transferred from the old issue-tracking system to the new issue-tracking system). However, that is not unique to these issues. We have disagreements over all of the issues. If there was immediate consensus on a topic it couldn't ever become an issue, let alone being added to the issue-tracking system. If you really want to change the way issues get added to the issue-tracking system, I think you should take a step back from these immediate issues and think abstractly about what criteria you'd like to see applied. Propose those principles to the WG and I'm sure we can come to an understanding. Take care, Rob
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 02:09:04 UTC