- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:58:03 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 12/17/2011 01:19 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 12/16/2011 09:59 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: >> I object to carrying through with that change proposal. >> >> I will not be writing a concrete and complete counter proposal -- because >> the original bug should ever have been escalated to begin with, and in my >> assessment does not merit continued attention from other members of the >> group nor the W3C Team. We all have more important issues to deal with >> that >> are genuine priorities that do actually merit our collective time and >> attention, and bugs/comments like this one are a distraction from getting >> work done on those real issues. >> >> The right way to have dealt with this would have been for the original >> bug >> to have been judged to be something best left up to editorial discretion. > > It is entirely up to members of the working group to determine what > merits their attention. > > If you note the resolution of the underlying bug[1], you will find a > statement over which reasonable people can disagree. > > I encourage people who disagree with the change proposal that we do have > to actually make a proposal and provide rationale for what they propose. > > If you like, submit a proposal that has the rationale "Everything's a > work in progress" and in that proposal suggest that the spec itself be > renamed to "HTML Living Standard". > > I fully understand that the WHATWG copy of the spec takes a different > position on this topic that the W3C HTML spec currently does. I respect > the fact that the WHATWG spec is internally consistent on this matter. I > also respect the fact that a member of this Working Group would like to > see the W3C document to be more internally consistent on this matter. > > If that person takes the effort to write a bug, open an issue, and make > a concrete proposal, then I think we need more discussion on the issue. > Not meta discussion about how we should handle issues, but actual > discussion, ideally on this very list, about the specific resolution of > the bug in question. On second reading, "not" implies instead of. I believe that the topic in question is one that reasonable people can disagree on, and that such topics merit discussions on this mailing list. If every who cares about this issue will participate in a discussion on this list, and they can come to consensus, there is no need for issues, Change Proposals or Surveys. What I did not mean to imply is that changes to the Decision Policy are off bounds. Those that wish to pursue such are encourage to file bug reports against the Decision Policy itself. Feel free to cite this bug as an example. Meanwhile, I am still looking for people to make concrete proposals if they chose to object. - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 18:58:32 UTC