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<[email protected]> 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
