- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:58:14 -0600
- 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 > Shelley
Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 19:58:42 UTC