Re: who would be interested in working with a Canvas object/2D API separate group

Hi Shelley,

On Aug 13, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But this isn't about me, or about who is tweaking the text. People  
>>> have expressed interest in being involved in this effort. I want  
>>> to see if this interest still exists. If not, then I won't bring  
>>> up this issue again to this group. I will still do the edits,  
>>> because I want to show what my changes would look like, for my own  
>>> sense of accomplishment. I won't dump them on the group, though.  
>>> Frankly, I'll most likely just quit, and do my own thing in my own  
>>> space. I have a couple of raised issues, but I have no concerns  
>>> that one at least will find a new owner (Issue 76). And chances  
>>> are, no one is interested in the other (Issue 77), anyway, and it  
>>> can just be closed.
>>
>> Threatening to quit (for the umpteenth time) is not constructive  
>> and not a good use of the group's time. I know this mailing list  
>> can be tense at times, but no one is attacking you here. I believe  
>> the majority of the group is totally open to RenderContext2D and  
>> the related interfaces being split into a separate spec, if an  
>> editor steps up. No one is stopping you from becoming that person.
>>
> Rather than this be a threat, this is my way of telling the group,  
> reassuring the group, that I was not going to continue to bring this  
> issue up. You must have read *my sentence following the one that  
> seemed to trigger your anger. Note my earlier emails on this topic,  
> when I asked for direction on how to handle this,  because I was  
> trying to find a way to make a proposal, to specify a concern,  
> without someone in the group getting on my case, and being treated  
> with hostility.
>
> I've decided it is impossible.
>
> As for being a "quitter" I never wanted to be part of this group. I  
> joined only with great reluctance, and only because I thought I  
> could help improve the HTML 5 specification. Evidently, that is also  
> impossible.

I did not mean to sound angry. It is completely up to you how you wish  
to spend your time. Like I said, I believe you are fully entitled to  
suggest breaking out the Canvas API, and the only blocker is someone  
stepping up to do the work. It can be you, it doesn't have to be you.  
I understand that these things take a lot of time and energy that not  
everyone has to spare.

My only objection is to doing a lot of procedural stuff around  
splitting out canvas, without someone (anyone) showing they can do the  
work first. I believe Sam stated the rough consensus of the group  
correctly - that this is a high cost, relatively low reward work item.

Regards,
Maciej