HTML WG - editing vs. affecting change [was: evidence of harm]

"Michael(tm) Smith" <>, 2009-06-25 23:59 +0900:

> Shelley Powers <>, 2009-06-25 09:40 -0500:
> [...]
> >  Sam Ruby:
> >  "The issue is not the ability to edit "a specification" it is the
> >  ability of the "working group" to effect change of the html 5
> >  specification."
> > 
> >  Sam, you offer the ability to edit, not effect change.
> I strongly believe that Sam has in fact outlined a plan for
> affecting real change, not simply the ability to edit. But this
> week's telcon is about to start,

oops, sorry, I got confused about the time.

> so I'll have to finish that thought in another message.

So here's the rest of that thought: Sam wrote the following
paragraphs a few hours earlier. (I'm putting there here out of
document order, but I think it does not change the meaning.)

  If we end up with multiple competing documents at the time we
  wish to enter Last Call, the document with the greatest amount
  of consensus will be the one that advances.

  If this means more specifications each purporting to be HTML 5
  with a survival of the fittest determining which one advances,
  I'm OK with that.  Better would be more documents with clear
  divisions of labor.  Best would be cooperation.

Sam has the full authority, as co-chair of the group, to put that
plan into place and to make it happen. And speaking as the W3C
team representative for the group, I want to say that it has my
support -- and in principle the support of those on the team to
who I answer -- and I have the responsibility and ability to help
make sure it does happen, if that is how the leadership of the
group chooses to proceed.

I other words, Sam is indeed offering the ability (and
opportunity) for anyone in the group to affect genuine change.


Michael(tm) Smith

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 15:26:15 UTC