Sam Ruby On 09-07-30 21.27:
Ben Adida wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
I have stated that the WHATWG (note: WHATWG, not HTML WG) is operating
under a CTR process.
I *was* talking about the HTML WG, and so were you when this discussion
was initially brought up:
"For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0063.html
I mispoke.
When? I think you were just as clear in May that we work under
CTR, as you are clear today that we are not.
I doubt that I am alone in perceiving the branch/fork "lottery" as
a consequence of the CTR process.
As for the heartbeat requirement, in line with the perception you
have created that we work under CTR (and may be you will once
again confirm that we are?), now that the forks you have asked for
finally have appeared (and Mike's wasn't in my view recognized as
a branch/fork in this sense until recently - or else it could have
been published as such _long_ ago), it does not make sense to give
priority to heartbeat. Instead, it would make sense to finally
take the consequence of the branch/fork call. (Heck, you have so
many times spoken in the tone of "produce a draft or take the
consequences = Ian's text".)
--
leif halvard silli
