Robert J Burns wrote:
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.
Well, the basic criteria that have been set out for issues to go in the tracker
are (in roughly the order I think they should logically be applied):
* Already under some notable degree of significant discussion within the group
* Clearly important to the group as a whole
* High-priority
Taking Issue 47 (bookmark-and-clipping-support) as an example, it's clear that
there had been no significant discussion of the issue before it was added to the
tracker. Therefore it fails the lowest bar for inclusion. I could apply similar
analysis to the other issues you raised, but I trust that it is now obvious to
you why they do not meet the criteria above.
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.
I am happy to accept that it may not have been entirely clear what was
appropriate for the issue tracker when you filed these issues. I think it has
now been made clear and it should be obvious that they do not meet the
requirements irrespective of my, or anyone else's, opinion on the merit of the
proposals themselves.
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.
I'm not sure how to interpret a sentence that starts " What the WG wants from
you is [...]" other than as you presuming to know, and be communicating, the
desires of the working group as a whole. If, in fact, you only intended to
communicate a personal opinion, I suggest that you choose your wording more
carefully in the future.
--
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
