- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:38:11 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, fantasai wrote: >> Note that the W3C Process Document trumps CSSWG policies, so there's a >> limit to how much you can shift over to the public list. (If that >> weren't the case, I believe Paul would have announced his materials on >> www-style.) > > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Bert Bos wrote: >> Please, don't, Ian. Our policy doesn't tell us to make confidential >> information public. As the process document says: "Those authorized to >> access Member-only and Team-only information [...] must not release this >> information to the general public." > > Wow. That's the clearest example of the attitude of secrecy and "process > over progress" that I've seen in a long time. Personally, I don't see that there's any progress to be made by continuing this conversation at all. There was a long heated discussion about font formats, but it has ended and passed out of the CSSWG's hands. I have no objection to it continuing elsewhere, but I will be happier if it never visits the CSSWG's agenda again. I don't see anything to be gained by continuing to discuss the issue except the opportunity for accusing others of bad behavior. That is not progress. Do your name-calling by private email or find some other means to announce it: the topic of *this* mailing list is TECHNICAL discussion of style sheets. > There was no confidential information in the mail I sent out. I noticed that. Your message left off that quote and picked up on a previous conversation on this mailing list with Paul. I have no problem with that. I was merely pointing out that you cannot pull the entire conversation from the wg list onto this public mailing list, in case you were tempted to do so. > Maybe if you didn't spend so much time trying to protect Microsoft, and > spent a little more time worrying about what would be the best for the Web, > the CSS working group wouldn't be in such a mess. I'm not going to answer that. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 21:38:27 UTC