W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:58:14 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001241158k187d0869k4e8bb56b86a76508@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shelley wrote:
>> The point I'm trying to make is that the technical discussion was
>> short-circuited, and a change made.
> Technical discussion hasn't been short-circuited. Yes, Ian made an edit
> to the editors' draft of the spec. He does this all the time, based on
> ongoing technical feedback, on the list and elsewhere. That's his job.

Is it?

I would think that an editor's job was to incorporate new material
only after there is at least rough agreement in the group. There
wasn't anything approaching agreement in the group on this. I don't
know about the other participates in the discussion, but it was only
in Ian's note to the group, today, that I found out the sole use case
for this change is weblog comments.

>> I checked, and the discussion was still continuing, good technical
>> points and concerns were still being expressed. Now, what point the
>> discussion? The decision was made, so any discussion is moot.
> No decision has been made.
> Ian made an edit to his draft based on feedback thus far. We have every
> reason to believe he will continue to edit the draft based on further
> feedback.

We have a Decision process in place precisely because we don't have
good evidence of this behavior.

> I think it would unduly constrain the WG's editors were we to require
> them to wait until all technical discussion had entirely wound down on a
> feature before making relevant edits to their documents.

I think a major change, and I do consider this a very significant
change, should have general consensus of the group before the change
is made.

I had asked what was the rationale for this change, but was told that
was a procedural question, and that I could dig the rationale out of
emails here and elsewhere.

But it is only when we are given detailed rationales, and use cases,
that we can judge the merit of an approach. Or to propose
alternatives. As it is, we had to ask for an example, just to see what
Ian had in mind. It wasn't until the edit was made to the draft, that
we even had a clear understanding of what was being proposed. And now,
the only true way to reverse this action, is to file a bug and take it
through the inconsistently applied Decision Process.

> Ted

Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 19:58:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC