RE: <iframe doc="">

I'm not sure why I am being cc'd on this particular conversation.

I agree that the public-html@w3.org list is inappropriate for discussing
process issues. But so far, I haven't even gotten an acknowledgment
of receipt for my simple request that the chairs document the
process as it is actually being followed (sent over a week ago):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jan/0048.html

So I don't think writing the chairs with a cc: to www-archive
is effective either. 

I do think it is the responsibility of W3C management to insure
sufficient governance of W3C working group activities that members
of the working group actually know what the process is, and that
the individuals appointed to positions of authority (such as 
working group chairs and document editors) are careful about
distinguishing their personal and proprietary interests when
acting in some official capacity. 

I'm not sure, though, how to best call these individuals
to account. Not here.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Shelley Powers [mailto:shelley.just@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 10:40 AM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: Paul Cotton; Sam Ruby; www-archive; Laura Carlson; Larry Masinter
Subject: Re: <iframe doc="">

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a very legitimate discussion to have in this group. Ian made a
>> unilateral decision in the midst of a discussion on whether this doc
>> (or srcdoc as it's now known) should be added to the specification. We
>> are disagreeing with this decision, and are expressing such a
>> disagreement.
>>
>> By attempting to re-frame this into a procedure issue, only, you are
>> stifling descent on this change.
>
> Discussing the technical merits (or lack thereof) of the change is fine, and indeed objecting to the feature on such grounds is totally appropriate for this list. If you want to discuss why it is a bad feature, or rebut arguments about why it is a good feature, you are welcome and encouraged to do so.
>
> If you want to discuss things like whether it was "unilateral" or whether there was or should have been a call for consensus or what our decision criteria as a group are, please take it to private email, or www-archive, or any forum but this list.
>
> People have been quite clear that they don't want the list filled with process discussions, and the Chairs agree. Please respect this.
>

I can be sympathetic to not wanting to discuss process issues in this list.

The point I'm trying to make is that the technical discussion was
short-circuited, and a change made. 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. Now we have to go through the extremely
tedious, and haphazardly applied, Decision process in order to
continue this discussion.

Ian did bring his action to our attention on the HTML WG list. I
contested this action on the list. Since he brought his unilateral
(and it was unilateral, there wasn't even a remote mention of
consensus or agreement with this decision) action to the list, where
am I or others supposed to respond?

More importantly, when Ian first brought up the doc attribute, and
mentioned how he had discussed this with you, and evidently only you,
Maciej, you undermined the authority of your co-chairs by encouraging
this behavior, and now continue to undermine their authority by
seeming to defend Ian's actions.

There is also a very strong appearance of conflict of interest in this
action. Apple's Safari is based on Webkit, as is Google's Chrome. When
Ian acts without consensus of the group, and you use your co-chair
authority to support his action, and undermine the concerns for the
rest of us, can you not see how this could potentially end up being a
much bigger problem than just this one change?

You can't apply one set of rules to Ian, and another to the rest of us Maciej.

I have been told to stop being "procedure police", to stop correcting
how it the Decision process is (mis)applied, to stop questioning how
decisions are happening. How can I, how can any if us, function in the
group, though, when there is little fairness in decisions being made,
and little equitability in processes applied? What message does it
send to the group if the HTML WG co-chairs, who wrote the Decision
Process, seemingly disregard it at will?

Shelley



> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>

Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 20:12:29 UTC