Re: discretion & the issue tracker (was Re: discretion in adding issues)

HI James,

On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:00 PM, James Graham wrote:

> Robert J Burns wrote:
>
>> I understand the purpose of the issue tracker. I understand what  
>> Mike wrote now on the HTML WG home page. What I still don't  
>> understand — and what I was referring to about Mike having trouble  
>> communicating — is how any of the issues I asked Gregory to add to  
>> the issue tracker do not meet the criteria Mike has laid out.
>
> Well, the basic criteria that have been set out for issues to go in  
> the tracker are (in roughly the order I think they should logically  
> be applied):
>
> * Already under some notable degree of significant discussion within  
> the group
> * Clearly important to the group as a whole
> * High-priority
>
> Taking Issue 47 (bookmark-and-clipping-support) as an example, it's  
> clear that there had been no significant discussion of the issue  
> before it was added to the tracker. Therefore it fails the lowest  
> bar for inclusion. I could apply similar analysis to the other  
> issues you raised, but I trust that it is now obvious to you why  
> they do not meet the criteria above.

Agreed that issue 47 did not have significant discussion on the list.  
However, you have cherry picked that single issue. That and subtext  
might also be the anomalies here, but there are special circumstances  
surrounding both. First both should clearly be important to the group  
as a whole due to the reasons outlined in the wiki pages. I would rank  
them high priority as well (I can understand that you might not, but  
that's simply something we need to discuss then). Finally on the  
already under some notable degree of significant discussion here you  
got me on those two issues (but on none of the others). I placed these  
on the wiki over six months ago with intention to bring them to  
discussion by the entire WG. Then as in now, the obstructionist  
tactics used by some in this group caused disillusion and I never got  
around to the introductory email regarding those two issues. Every  
single other issue has had such an introductory email (including those  
now) and most have had significant on-list and off-list discussion.

Regardless, the continued discussion on this topic is simply more of  
the same obstructionist moves we've seen so often in this WG. These  
are all high priority issues that should be important to the whole WG.  
They're up for a notable degree of significant discussion now. So  
discuss away. But please stop dwelling on whether I or Gregory or  
anyone else should first come to you to see if we can initiate issues  
for the WG. It simply gets in the way of the work of the WG and causes  
endless back and forth discussion to no end.

>
>
>> If you or Mike or whoever doesn't agree with the issues I raised,  
>> then by all means raise specific objections on the HTML WG list.  
>> But please stop making these pseudo procedural arguments here when  
>> it is clear you have no leg to stand on.
>
> I am happy to accept that it may not have been entirely clear what  
> was appropriate for the issue tracker when you filed these issues. I  
> think it has now been made clear and it should be obvious that they  
> do not meet the requirements irrespective of my, or anyone else's,  
> opinion on the merit of the proposals themselves.

No, it is not clear to me even now why these issues do not belong in  
the issue tracker any more than the style attribute syntax discussed  
at the meeting or the http referrer header also discussed (for which  
the issue should be closed if the editor was following proper — even  
common sense — procedures regarding the issue tracker.

>
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Robert, I really think it is inappropriate for you to presume to  
>>> speak for the whole working group when you are not communicating  
>>> an actual working group decision.
>> I never said I spoke for the whole WG. Again why don't you state  
>> specifically what you disagree with rather than claiming I'm  
>> speaking for the entire WG when I'm clearly not in any position to  
>> do so.
>
> I'm not sure how to interpret a sentence that starts " What the WG  
> wants from you is [...]" other than as you presuming to know, and be  
> communicating, the desires of the working group as a whole. If, in  
> fact, you only intended to communicate a personal opinion, I suggest  
> that you choose your wording more carefully in the future.

James, you just claimed to know what the WG thinks is a high priority  
issue and important to the group as a whole. I didn't assume you were  
speaking for the whole group but rather stating your opinion about  
what you thought the group's views on this must be. If you're going to  
go around insulting others in the WG by telling them how to behave at  
least follow your own advice. Otherwise it looks really ridiculous.

Take care,
Rob

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 18:51:48 UTC