> On Jun 3, 2016, at 01:35, Chaals McCathie Nevile <cha...@yandex-team.ru> > wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:14:38 +0200, <mar...@marcosc.com> wrote: > >> Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of >> this mailing list. >> >> For the purpose of progressing a spec, the only thing that matters is >> objections. > > Hi Marcos, > > If there are no objections, then the +1's indeed don't matter. But if there > is one or more, then having some measure of the overall consensus of the > group is important. > > It's why we've got the arrangement that except where progressing makes a > significant difference, we do it automatically and allow for objection as the > exception case. Moving to CR potentially binds members to patent commitments, > which matters to some members as well as to many people "out there in the > wild", and requires that we demonstrate agreement of the group. > > So I'm sorry for the extra mail, but in this case I'm afraid it's part of > running the W3C process. If everything goes smoothly, you can expect this for > HTML twice more in the next year: once to move to Proposed Recommendation, > and once to move 5.2 to First Public Working Draft.
I believe Marcos is raising a valid concern here - while I'm not in full agreement that only objections matter, most of the people get enough mail already and it does make it easy to get important feedback lost in a chain of +1 mails. (and when it piles up, it's just something you zip through and mark as read, now repeat time spent doing that multiplied by subscribers of this ML...) Having a platform where the chairs/staff can get a quick overview of the consensus stats sounds a like it could save time in the even anyone needs the consensus statistics. (As mentioned in a earlier reply, WBS could work, even if it's not a great tool per se.) Sangwhan >>> On 3 Jun 2016, at 12:36 AM, Mona Rekhi <mona.re...@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Mona Rekhi >>> SSB BART Group >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] >>> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 8:48 AM >>> To: 'public-webapps WG' <public-webapps@w3.org> >>> Subject: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR) >>> >>> Hello WP, >>> >>> This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML >>> Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been posted >>> to public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG. >>> >>> Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@w3.org no later than end of >>> day on 10 June. Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence >>> will be considered as assent. >>> >>> The current HTML5.1 WD [1] improves upon HTML5. It includes updates that >>> make it more reliable, more readable and understandable, and a better match >>> for reality. Substantial changes between HTML5 and HTML5.1 can be found in >>> the spec [2]. >>> >>> When a specification moves to CR it triggers a Call For Exclusions, per >>> section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [3]. No substantive additions can be >>> made to a specification in CR without starting a new Call for Exclusions, >>> so we will put HTML5.1 into "feature freeze". It is possible to make >>> editorial updates as necessary, and features marked "At Risk" may be >>> removed if found not to be interoperable. >>> >>> The following features are considered "at risk". If we cannot identify at >>> least two shipping implementations, they will be marked "at risk" in the CR >>> and may be removed from the Proposed Recommendation. >>> >>> keygen element. [issue 43] >>> label as a reassociatable element [issue 109] Fixing requestAnimationFrame >>> to 60Hz, not implementation-defined [issues 159/375/422] >>> registerContentHandler [Issue 233] inputmode attribute of the input element >>> [issue 269] autofill of form elements [issue 372] menu, menuitem and >>> context menus. [issue 373] dialog element [issue 427] Text tracks exposing >>> in-band metadata best practices [Issue 461] datetime and datatime-local >>> states of the input element [Issue 462] >>> >>> Please share implementation details for any of these features on Github. To >>> mark other features "at risk", please identify them by 10th June (ideally >>> by filing an issue and providing a test case). >>> >>> At the same time we move HTML5.1 into CR, we plan to continue updating the >>> Editor's Draft, and in the next few weeks we expect to post a Call for >>> Consensus to publish it as the First Public Working Draft of HTML5.2, so >>> improving HTML will continue without a pause. It also means that changes >>> that didn't make it into >>> HTML5.1 will not have long to wait before being incorporated into the >>> specification. >>> >>> Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors. >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/ >>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/changes.html#changes >>> [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion >>> >>> [issue 43] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/43 >>> [issue 109] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/109 >>> [issues 159/375/422] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/159 and links >>> [issue 233] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/233 >>> [issue 269] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/269 >>> [issue 372] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/372 >>> [issue 373] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/373 >>> [issue 427] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/427 >>> [Issue 461] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/461 >>> [Issue 462] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/462 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex > cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
