- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:08:23 -0600
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > I refuse to play that game. Don't answer then and continue with the game you are playing. L On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On 12/03/2012 08:48 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: >> >> The question is one of veracity. >> >> Does the HTMLWG have: >> "two very private lists, where all the decisions about what actually >> gets merged into the spec appear to take place."? >> >> Sam, is that statement: >> >> True or false? >> >> Pick one. > > > Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no? Pick one. > > I refuse to play that game. > > Categorical statements I will make: All working group decisions are made > publicly, and are based on publicly made comments. All updates made to > Candidate Recommendation drafts will be made in response to bug reports. > The Working Group is provided with ample opportunity to request that changes > that have not been adequately pre-flighted with the group to be reverted. > > >> Laura >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 12/03/2012 05:00 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Chairs, >>>> >>>> The following statement was made recently [1]: >>>> >>>> "HTMLWG has two very private lists, where all the decisions about >>>> what >>>> actually gets merged into the spec appear to take place." >>>> >>>> If this is the case, it appears to be very troubling state of affairs. >>>> >>>> I would appreciate it if the veracity of this statement was confirmed by >>>> the Chairs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Editors, like yourself, make the initial determination as to what goes >>> into >>> specifications. The chairs ensure that there is ample opportunity for >>> the >>> Working Group to review, comment on, influence, and ultimately overturn >>> editor resolutions when necessary. >>> >>> If you know of any instance where editors have somehow avoided this, >>> please >>> let the chairs know of specifics, and we will investigate. Here is a >>> history of revert requests: >>> >>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/revert-requests.html >>> >>> Here are the processes we are following for extension specifications: >>> >>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#cr >>> >>> To date, no extension specification has been nominated for inclusion. >>> >>> And here is the process that we will hopefully shortly be following for >>> CR: >>> >>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#cr >>> >>> - Sam Ruby >>> >>> >>>> [1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20121201#l-144 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> with regards >>>> >>>> Steve Faulkner >>>> Technical Director - TPG >>>> >>>> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | >>>> www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> | >>>> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner> >>>> >>>> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - >>>> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ >>>> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/> >>>> >>>> Web Accessibility Toolbar - >>>> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html >>>> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 14:09:30 UTC