HI James,
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:00 PM, James Graham wrote:
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.
Agreed that issue 47 did not have significant discussion on the list.
However, you have cherry picked that single issue. That and subtext
might also be the anomalies here, but there are special circumstances
surrounding both. First both should clearly be important to the group
as a whole due to the reasons outlined in the wiki pages. I would rank
them high priority as well (I can understand that you might not, but
that's simply something we need to discuss then). Finally on the
already under some notable degree of significant discussion here you
got me on those two issues (but on none of the others). I placed these
on the wiki over six months ago with intention to bring them to
discussion by the entire WG. Then as in now, the obstructionist
tactics used by some in this group caused disillusion and I never got
around to the introductory email regarding those two issues. Every
single other issue has had such an introductory email (including those
now) and most have had significant on-list and off-list discussion.
Regardless, the continued discussion on this topic is simply more of
the same obstructionist moves we've seen so often in this WG. These
are all high priority issues that should be important to the whole WG.
They're up for a notable degree of significant discussion now. So
discuss away. But please stop dwelling on whether I or Gregory or
anyone else should first come to you to see if we can initiate issues
for the WG. It simply gets in the way of the work of the WG and causes
endless back and forth discussion to no end.
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.
No, it is not clear to me even now why these issues do not belong in
the issue tracker any more than the style attribute syntax discussed
at the meeting or the http referrer header also discussed (for which
the issue should be closed if the editor was following proper — even
common sense — procedures regarding the issue tracker.
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.
James, you just claimed to know what the WG thinks is a high priority
issue and important to the group as a whole. I didn't assume you were
speaking for the whole group but rather stating your opinion about
what you thought the group's views on this must be. If you're going to
go around insulting others in the WG by telling them how to behave at
least follow your own advice. Otherwise it looks really ridiculous.
Take care,
Rob
