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

What you're asking is for me to have to work through another person, 
because the HTML WG will not allow me to present my own arguments. You 
seem to be implying that the reason why is I can't be trusted to be 
civil. Or at least, that's how I take your specific note about 
"discussion guidelines" and "civil post".

This in light of one exchange this week where one person accused another 
of trolling[1] because the other continued questioning a decision. A 
couple of weeks ago, another member accused others of being "armchair 
complainers"[2], because of a change they sought.

Are these demonstrations of acceptably civil posts that meet discussion 
guidelines you're concerned I can't meet? If so, then I can say without 
hesitation, I can follow the guidelines.

People will get testy in these working groups. And tired and cranky. 
They'll say things that, on hindsight, would be better left unsaid. 
They'll say things others will misinterpret. Most of the time people 
will correct themselves before anyone has to intervene. Sometimes folks 
will have to intervene.

I have no problems with any of this. What I do have a problem with is 
being singled out. That, and the reasons for being singled out.

No, again with thanks to Danny, but I continue to decline. No one speaks 
for me, Sam.  I will skulk in the background like a naughty girl not 
allowed in the clubhouse.

Shelley

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0234.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0035.html


On 6/18/2011 3:32 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 06/18/2011 04:25 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> I appreciate your offer, Danny, but I don't know how it would work.
>>
>> I can't email concerns or reasons for making a revert request to the
>> HTML WG. As Sam Ruby was careful to outline, only members can make the
>> request, only members can send emails with revert requests to the group.
>
> Danny is a member of the working group, and will be held accountable 
> to the discussion guidelines for everything that he posts to 
> public-html. If he does post a civil revert request with a technical 
> rationale on that list, and it receives a second, it will be evaluated.
>
> The next time the chairs are scheduled to meet is at 4pm EDT on Monday.
>
>> Thanks, though, for the offer.
>>
>> Shelley
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>> On 6/18/2011 1:15 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.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Danny.
>>>
>>> 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 21:01:01 UTC