Hi James,
On Jun 5, 2008, at 2:20 PM, James Graham wrote:
HI Mike,
I think the reason you're having such difficulty communicating here,
I've been following this discussion closely since I need to be aware
of the best-practice for using the tracker. It strikes me that Mike
has been extremely clear about how the issue tracker is to be used,
and I would like to thank him for taking the time to make it
explicit. Mike, could you perhaps add a note to the tracker page
itself or to the WG home page summarizing the correct use of the
tracker so that everyone is aware of how it is to be used going
forward? I appreciate you have already spent some considerable time
on this issue, but since the issue tracker has slightly different
operating procedures from a typical bug database I can foresee this
issue arising again.
I understand the purpose of the issue tracker. I understand what Mike
wrote now on the HTML WG home page. What I still don't understand —
and what I was referring to about Mike having trouble communicating —
is how any of the issues I asked Gregory to add to the issue tracker
do not meet the criteria Mike has laid out. If you or Mike or whoever
doesn't agree with the issues I raised, then by all means raise
specific objections on the HTML WG list. But please stop making these
pseudo procedural arguments here when it is clear you have no leg to
stand on.
While I think everyone in the WG welcomes your enthusiasm — it’s
great to have a staff contact take such a close interest in the
daily activities of the WG — you're clearly overstepping your
bounds in suggesting the WG wants you to delete these issues from
the issue- tracker. What the WG wants from you is to dutifully
serve as a staff contact to the W3C, to serve as a liaison between
the WG and the W3C and to help us all understand the procedures
within which we're supposed to work.
Robert, I really think it is inappropriate for you to presume to
speak for the whole working group when you are not communicating an
actual working group decision.
I never said I spoke for the whole WG. Again why don't you state
specifically what you disagree with rather than claiming I'm speaking
for the entire WG when I'm clearly not in any position to do so.
Certainly no one active in the WG would make the mistake of thinking I
was speaking for the whole WG.
Speaking purely for myself, I am happy to see Mike taking in active
role in managing the HTMLWG community and I hope his efforts will
result in a more coordinated group and better signal/noise for those
trying to follow the discussions.
Isn't that what I already said. I just provided Mike some guidance on
how to better accomplish his goals.
Take care,
Rob
