- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:26:56 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe LeHegaret <plh@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 2011-11-11 17:01, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:47:25 +0100, Steve Faulkner > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> The editor had more than a reasonable amount of time to get to the >> revert request, he found time to respond to other bugs and publicly >> respond to the working group decision to make the revert against his >> wishes. > > Replying to a bug and answering some questions does not mean Ian had > access to the source document where the edit needs to be made. And even > if he did, the steps taken now are way more harmful than waiting a > little longer. And they continue to be harmful, as we now effectively have a fork, with Mike having to maintain it. Lots of time was wasted already; future waste of time could be avoided by Ian actually applying the revert to his version of the spec. What exactly stops him from doing that? Please remind me. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 16:27:30 UTC