Re: I am Spartacus! [was Re: revert requests]

On 06/18/2011 02:15 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> I'm not at all comfortable with Shelley's position in relation to the
> WG, despite a lot of good input she does appear to have become
> disenfranchised. Sure, some of that may be her idiosyncratic response
> to events, but idiosyncrasy is blatant all over HTML5. Whatever, the
> net result is the spec suffers by the lack of consideration of the
> issues (that should be) raised.
>
> So I'd like to declare myself as a willing proxy for Shelley -
> anything she says, take it that I said it as a WG member.
>
> Shelley and I have differed many times over the years, and I'm sure on
> a lot of of the detail of the current project we have opposing views.
> But for the more significant aspects (like editorial process) I
> believe she is arguing valid points. Such a case below.

If you are willing to follow the Discussion Guidelines[1], make a 
request for reversion on public-html, include in that request technical 
rationale as to why you believe this particular change is inappropriate, 
and have that request seconded by another Working Group member, the 
chairs will evaluate the request.

This process has been followed for every revert request to date:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/revert-requests.html

Despite claims to the contrary, the Discussion Guidelines apply to every 
member of the working group.

If you would like to advocate that the Decision Policy be changed to 
require prior discussion on the HTML WG mailing list before any commit 
be made, you are encouraged to make your case in response to the 
existing bug on the Decision Policy:

   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12734

> Cheers,
> Danny.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ListGuidelines

> On 18 June 2011 09:00, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> On 2011-06-18 04:06, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> We shouldn't have to, at this time in the process, spend the next
>>> several months trying to spot the major changes that the editor
>>> introduces without any warning or any previous discussion. What makes
>>> things worse is that not ony are we having to deal with major
>>> differences between the W3C and WHATWG HTML documents, but now even the
>>> Last Call and editor's drafts of HTML5 at the W3C are significantly
>>> different--differences not introduced through the procedure you hold so
>>> dear.
>>> ...
>>
>> +1 on this.
>>
>> Last Call means that for every change to the "living standard", *somebody*
>> will need to figure out whether it needs to go to the HTML5 spec as well and
>> make that happen (and nothing more). A "branch", so to speak.
>>
>> Until this happens, LC doesn't work for me. It's already impossible to
>> review the full spec; but having to watch for surprising feature additions
>> as we go along makes things much worse.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 18:44:38 UTC