Re: the MathML comments

[Anne van Kesteren-2]

-public-html
+www-archive

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:52:29 -0800, Sam Ruby <rubys@...>  
wrote:
> So, on one hand, I have zero sympathy for any active participant in the  
> working group who chose to attend a session on MathML who may claim to  
> have been unaware of this work or making any statement other than the  
> fact that while they personally did not have a chance to review it,  
> sufficient others have for this to have been sent on behalf of the  
> working group.

When the session was announced I got the impression it was about MathML  
integration (also based on a short discussion earlier with another Math WG  
member) and since I know something about that I attended. I had no idea  
MathML feedback would be discussed.


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

[rubys]

Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> -public-html
> +www-archive
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:52:29 -0800, Sam Ruby <rubys@...>
> wrote:
>> So, on one hand, I have zero sympathy for any active participant in
>> the working group who chose to attend a session on MathML who may
>> claim to have been unaware of this work or making any statement other
>> than the fact that while they personally did not have a chance to
>> review it, sufficient others have for this to have been sent on behalf
>> of the working group.
>
> When the session was announced I got the impression it was about MathML
> integration (also based on a short discussion earlier with another Math
> WG member) and since I know something about that I attended. I had no
> idea MathML feedback would be discussed.

Did I suggest that you shouldn't have attended?

- Sam Ruby

[Anne van Kesteren-2]

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:05:44 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@...>  
wrote:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> -public-html
>> +www-archive
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:52:29 -0800, Sam Ruby <rubys@...>  
>> wrote:
>>> So, on one hand, I have zero sympathy for any active participant in  
>>> the working group who chose to attend a session on MathML who may  
>>> claim to have been unaware of this work or making any statement other  
>>> than the fact that while they personally did not have a chance to  
>>> review it, sufficient others have for this to have been sent on behalf  
>>> of the working group.
>>
>> When the session was announced I got the impression it was about MathML  
>> integration (also based on a short discussion earlier with another Math  
>> WG member) and since I know something about that I attended. I had no  
>> idea MathML feedback would be discussed.
>
> Did I suggest that you shouldn't have attended?

I do not think the "zero sympathy" is fair given the situation.


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

[rubys]

Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:05:44 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@...>
> wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> -public-html
>>> +www-archive
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:52:29 -0800, Sam Ruby <rubys@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So, on one hand, I have zero sympathy for any active participant in
>>>> the working group who chose to attend a session on MathML who may
>>>> claim to have been unaware of this work or making any statement
>>>> other than the fact that while they personally did not have a chance
>>>> to review it, sufficient others have for this to have been sent on
>>>> behalf of the working group.
>>>
>>> When the session was announced I got the impression it was about
>>> MathML integration (also based on a short discussion earlier with
>>> another Math WG member) and since I know something about that I
>>> attended. I had no idea MathML feedback would be discussed.
>>
>> Did I suggest that you shouldn't have attended?
>
> I do not think the "zero sympathy" is fair given the situation.

Whee!  This is fun.  Not.

Let's start at the beginning.  Did you or did you not miss the repeated
and public statements that there would be a review going on, statements
that were made in October, made on public-html, the low traffic
public-html-wg-announce, and on the weekly telecon itself and more than
three weeks before TPAC?  I will note that annevk2 was listed as a
participant in the 15 October call.

Drilling down on just one part of my message is itself unfair.
Confusion happened, it is a reality.  Nobody acted in bad faith.  How we
proceed from here is the only relevant question.

I don't want to discourage people from providing feedback, which is
something that the statements that were recorded in the context of the
TPAC had the significant potential of doing.

I do want to set the expectation that if we provide ample notice and
solicit feedback that we will proceed with the feedback that is given.
This expectation will be important as we proceed with our own spec.

We have a number of individuals and groups which provided bug reports
during the course of TPAC who previously had not done so.  A number of
these were due to the setting of that expectation.

- Sam Ruby

[Maciej Stachowiak]

Hi Sam,

On Nov 9, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:05:44 +0100, Sam Ruby  
>> <rubys@...> wrote:
>>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>> -public-html
>>>> +www-archive
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:52:29 -0800, Sam Ruby <rubys@...
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> So, on one hand, I have zero sympathy for any active participant  
>>>>> in the working group who chose to attend a session on MathML who  
>>>>> may claim to have been unaware of this work or making any  
>>>>> statement other than the fact that while they personally did not  
>>>>> have a chance to review it, sufficient others have for this to  
>>>>> have been sent on behalf of the working group.
>>>>
>>>> When the session was announced I got the impression it was about  
>>>> MathML integration (also based on a short discussion earlier with  
>>>> another Math WG member) and since I know something about that I  
>>>> attended. I had no idea MathML feedback would be discussed.
>>>
>>> Did I suggest that you shouldn't have attended?
>> I do not think the "zero sympathy" is fair given the situation.
>
> Whee!  This is fun.  Not.
>
> Let's start at the beginning.  Did you or did you not miss the  
> repeated and public statements that there would be a review going  
> on, statements that were made in October, made on public-html, the  
> low traffic public-html-wg-announce, and on the weekly telecon  
> itself and more than three weeks before TPAC?  I will note that  
> annevk2 was listed as a participant in the 15 October call.

Having been present in person in the HTML/MathML session I can say the  
following:

- A number of people seemed to be aware that there was review going on  
and comments being collected.
- Some people (including, I believe, Anne) were aware that comment  
were circulated and solicited two days before the session in question.
- Almost no one seemed to be aware that these comments had been  
submitted as official feedback from the HTML WG to the Math WG earlier  
that same day.
- A number of people seemed to feel uncomfortable with being put in  
the position of standing behind these comments as comments from the  
whole WG.

I believe the confusion here was almost entirely the fault of the  
chairs for not stating a clear process. I believe it is unfair to  
seemingly assign some blame to the attendees of the joint session  
("zero sympathy") for lack of attention, when many of them are among  
the most active and attentive participants in the working group. If  
many of those people were confused about what happened, then that's a  
clear indication that the chairs failed to set expectations properly.  
Similarly, it would be unfair to in any way blame Shelley for the  
confusing situation, and I was careful not to do so in my remarks.

One thing to keep in mind: typical W3C procedure is that official  
cross-WG comments are assumed to have consensus of the Working Group  
providing them unless stated otherwise. The chairs should have kept  
this in mind when developing the process for cross-WG comments. I for  
one am happy that Shelley was willing to beta test the process. Now we  
need to fix the bugs.

Regards,
Maciej

[rubys]

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:05:44 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>> -public-html
>>>>> +www-archive
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:52:29 -0800, Sam Ruby
>>>>> <rubys@...> wrote:
>>>>>> So, on one hand, I have zero sympathy for any active participant
>>>>>> in the working group who chose to attend a session on MathML who
>>>>>> may claim to have been unaware of this work or making any
>>>>>> statement other than the fact that while they personally did not
>>>>>> have a chance to review it, sufficient others have for this to
>>>>>> have been sent on behalf of the working group.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the session was announced I got the impression it was about
>>>>> MathML integration (also based on a short discussion earlier with
>>>>> another Math WG member) and since I know something about that I
>>>>> attended. I had no idea MathML feedback would be discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Did I suggest that you shouldn't have attended?
>>> I do not think the "zero sympathy" is fair given the situation.
>>
>> Whee!  This is fun.  Not.
>>
>> Let's start at the beginning.  Did you or did you not miss the
>> repeated and public statements that there would be a review going on,
>> statements that were made in October, made on public-html, the low
>> traffic public-html-wg-announce, and on the weekly telecon itself and
>> more than three weeks before TPAC?  I will note that annevk2 was
>> listed as a participant in the 15 October call.
>
> Having been present in person in the HTML/MathML session I can say the
> following:
>
> - A number of people seemed to be aware that there was review going on
> and comments being collected.

Excellent.

> - Some people (including, I believe, Anne) were aware that comment were
> circulated and solicited two days before the session in question.

Excellent.

> - Almost no one seemed to be aware that these comments had been
> submitted as official feedback from the HTML WG to the Math WG earlier
> that same day.

Completely understandable.

> - A number of people seemed to feel uncomfortable with being put in the
> position of standing behind these comments as comments from the whole WG.

There clearly is a labeling issue, one that we seem to have made
progress on.

> I believe the confusion here was almost entirely the fault of the chairs
> for not stating a clear process.

Agreed.

> I believe it is unfair to seemingly
> assign some blame to the attendees of the joint session ("zero
> sympathy") for lack of attention,

I would agree that that would be unfair, if in fact that was what I said.

> when many of them are among the most
> active and attentive participants in the working group. If many of those
> people were confused about what happened, then that's a clear indication
> that the chairs failed to set expectations properly. Similarly, it would
> be unfair to in any way blame Shelley for the confusing situation, and I
> was careful not to do so in my remarks.

Confusion occurred, as stated above, the confusion was not Anne's fault
nor Shelley's fault.  It was yours, mine, and Paul's.  And I can live
with that.  Despite the confusion, a good result occurred, and we know
where we need to improve.  We will do better next time.

> One thing to keep in mind: typical W3C procedure is that official
> cross-WG comments are assumed to have consensus of the Working Group
> providing them unless stated otherwise. The chairs should have kept this
> in mind when developing the process for cross-WG comments. I for one am
> happy that Shelley was willing to beta test the process. Now we need to
> fix the bugs.

We clearly have a bug or two to fix.  And I'm confident that we will fix
them.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby