Re: HTML plan review at upcoming AB

On Feb 13, 2015, at 12:39 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 02/13/2015 12:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 
>>> From the plan review itself:
>>> 
>>>> This is work in progress. It has only been looked at by Sam, Paul,
>>>> PLH, and Robin. This document has no official status and was simply
>>>> produced in response to a request from the AB. Some elements of this
>>>> plan have been rejected previously and could undergo substantial
>>>> changes before coming into effect.
>>> 
>>> Full plan can be found here:
>>> 
>>>  http://darobin.github.io/after5/html-plan.html
>> 
>> I believe it is inappropriate to enshrine any exclusive group as the
>> gateway for what goes into HTML, whether that group is a small set of
>> companies that happen to dominate current browser marketshare, or a
>> small set of individuals that happen to dominate an IRC club.
> 
> Quote from the plan:
> 
> "We would be willing to entertain discussions of alternatives, but only if such proposals include details describing how the both financial and technical aspects will be addressed."

There are no financial aspects.  W3C members already pay sufficiently to
support an editor, and the other roles are traditionally appointed to
volunteers.

The technical aspects involve the same free tools already in use today.

>> Furthermore, I see no reason to assign that role to the WHATWG.
>> Triage tends to be dominated by whomever does the work, regardless of
>> their role or official title, with the exception of decisions that have
>> been made by the working group.
>> 
>> If the intent of this process is to continue adhering to the decisions
>> made by the working group, and to allow the working group to override
>> any triage when it chooses to do so, then any individual(s) can take on
>> the role of triage without making it separate from the WG.  There is
>> no need to assign that role to some other group even if only people in
>> that group are willing to do the work.
> 
> Quote from the plan:
> 
> "Over the past few years HTML-related bugs have been filed in both the WHATWG and the HTML WG. This duplication is at best a waste of effort and at worst induces confusion on its own."

Then stop looking at the WHATWG bug tracker.  You are enabling a problem
that didn't need to exist in the first place.

>> OTOH, if the intent of this plan is to replace or reduce decisions
>> made by this group to only those deemed acceptable in triage, then
>> consider this an objection to that plan.  That would be nothing more
>> than a rubber-stamp process.  I would rather put an end to the W3C
>> than participate in such an effort.
> 
> The W3C is bigger than HTML.
> 
> If you are suggesting closing down the HTML WG, that's operationally indistinguishable from delegating that work to the WHATWG, which is something you object to.

No, if the W3C did not exist then other standards organizations (existing
or new) would step up to fill the gaps, just as the W3C stepped up when it
took HTML away from the IETF.  Preferably, this time it will be some
organization that reflects all of the implementors of Web protocols,
rather than just the few that WHATWG cares about.

Obviously, ending the W3C isn't my first choice.  I would prefer it if
this group simply stopped being so stupendously arrogant, consider
carefully the poor quality of the specs it has developed so far, and
adopt a W3C process that is not an absurd special-case.

I personally think the WHATWG would have imploded years ago if it were
not for the ridiculous ways that this group has been prevented from doing
anything that might be deemed interesting.  Let the editors so some
original work, on their own or at the behest of WG decisions, and maybe
the consensus process will take care of itself.

....Roy

Received on Saturday, 14 February 2015 01:35:41 UTC