Problem: Standards people assuming that having me or @tabatkins review something is equivalent to asking the @csswg. :/
3
1
16
I never said or assumed that they were equivalent. It can be more useful to request review from a small number of people who look at something closely than from a large number of people who assume somebody else is reviewing the details but (together) are more likely to bikeshed.
1
I got no problem being called out specifically for detailed review. Just with that being the extent of it. It doesn't give others the same opportunity to have awareness and to provide input, and it exacerbates the problem John and Chris note in
John Jansen @thejohnjansen
2 May 2020
Replying to @tabatkins @cwilso @fantasai @csswg
Oh, yeah. Definitely a problem. Wasn’t implying otherwise. The WG needs to fix it. Just saying I remember talking about this exact thing at TPAC in Lyon in like 2010 or something.
2
1
Replying to @fantasai @tabatkins @csswg
Perhaps it would help to suggest what other review you think is needed in some way other than subtweeting about it? Perhaps we were going to solicit additional review when we publish a checkpoint of the document, which we were about to do once one more set of edits happens?

May 3, 2020 · 10:52 PM UTC

1
1
Replying to @davidbaron @tabatkins @csswg
You could have asked, e.g. on www-style, if anyone else had principles they felt belonged in the document. But it's not just your request. It's a general pattern. That's my point; that's why I didn't link the instance (until Tab asked), and why I posted it to a general audience.