W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Moving forward on deciding [was: Intended Audience]

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:14:45 -0800
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <58D86C0B-71C7-4F5A-BBD3-3901DD80ECFB@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>


Sam,

Thanks for taking these steps. That sounds like a fine way to move  
forward.

Regards,
Maciej

On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

>
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 09:59, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
>>> My draft is my
>>> attempt to produce something concrete that tries to be what some
>>> people (both inside and outside of the group) have said is a part
>>> of what they think we need to produce, and to have the group and
>>> public review it and see if it actually meets that need -- or even
>>> if it's viable/possible to met the need at all.
>>>
>>> Also, among the responsibilities I committed to by agreeing to be
>>> a team contact for the group was to try to represent in this group
>>> not just my own views and the positions I personally agree with
>>> completely, but also to attempt in good faith to represent the
>>> views of others on the W3C Team. I don't think it should come as a
>>> surprise to you or anybody else that there are a range of
>>> viewpoints among the W3C Team about what kind of spec(s) this
>>> group should be producing. This draft in part is an attempt to
>>> also represent some of those viewpoints.
>>>
>>> And that said, it's not just people on the W3C Team who have
>>> expressed a viewpoint that we need to produce something like this
>>> draft. Although it's not my explicit responsibility to try to
>>> represent views of anyone else outside the W3C Team, I do feel an
>>> obligation to try do so to the degree that I can practically.
>> Thank you for sharing this with the WG. (Others in the WG may also  
>> be interested in the IRC discussion from yesterday logged at: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20090129#l-116 
>>  )
>> It bothers me that it wasn't stated up front that private feedback  
>> in general and from the W3C Team in particular was a major  
>> motivating factor behind "HTML 5: The Markup Language". (Or if this  
>> has been stated before, I haven't properly noticed it.)
>> The HTML5 effort has been criticized for Hixie taking private  
>> feedback into account in his editing of "HTML 5". However, Hixie  
>> has at least readily disclosed that private feedback has motivated  
>> notable editing choices.
>> Given the recent suggestion that the WG needs some ground rules for  
>> taking on new drafts, I'd like to suggest that one of the ground  
>> rules be that editors disclose to the WG when a draft or a section  
>> of a draft comes into existence in response to private feedback the  
>> whole group isn't seeing. (Of course, I'd prefer even more openness.)
>
> I see a leap in this argument.  Mike has said that some of this  
> input has come from outside of this group.  You infer that such  
> input is private and non-disclosed, when in fact I will suggest that  
> there has been input from outside of the group that has been public  
> and widely disclosed.  Look at the very title of this issue:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/77
>
> Clearly there are trust issues here that for the life of me I can't  
> fathom.  Standards are being applied against Mike and his document  
> that are not being applied to Ian or his document.  I don't know how  
> to get past it.  I really would like us to get to the point where we  
> give people the benefit of the doubt, and not jump to conclusions.
>
> In the full interest of disclosure, I spent the last two and half  
> days at an ECMAScript meeting at Google.  Shortly after landing, I  
> had dinner with Ian.  After the next full day of meeting, I went out  
> to eat with the ECMA TC39 participants and then went back to my  
> hotel.  After yesterday's meeting, I met with a number of people at  
> Mozilla (Brendan, Josh, Arun, Rob, and dBaron).  Ian and Larry were  
> also in attendance. After that, I took a red-eye home.
>
> At every meeting, I said that everything I discussed could be  
> discussed on the mailing list, blogged, or whatever.  I do this  
> consistently.  I hope I can earn people's trust.
>
> I like to actually have met people I am working with, at least once.
>
> Two actions came out of the meeting at Mozilla.  I am to discuss  
> with plh the rather disquieting state where the very charter of this  
> group is evolving without the participation of this group:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/77
>
> Other things I plan to discuss with plh: the rather dysfunctional  
> status of this working group, the W3C license, and the relationship  
> with XHTML2.
>
> Second, Rob volunteered to take a stab at a simple declarative  
> paragraph which he would propose to be included in the status of  
> Mike's draft. Such paragraph would include mention about the lack of  
> consensus at this point on the normative status, and a mention of an  
> intent for this document to follow the Design Principles that this  
> work group had previously established.
>
> After that, here are two things I would like to establish, and in a  
> particular order.
>
> Before considering a suggestion that Mike's draft go forward as a  
> FPWD for this Work Group, I'd like to establish that the document is  
> at the very least a group effort (lowercase 'g', by that I mean more  
> than an individual).  I'd like to hear that there are a minimum of  
> three, independent, and recognized by this group individuals that  
> intend to make sustained contribution this document, and a  
> description of how they intent to participate.  It need not be in  
> the form of co-editorship or even camera ready copy, it could be  
> active review, suggestions etc.
>
> If that's obtained, and preferably after Rob makes his (quite  
> possibly one-time, and therefore not by itself meeting the  
> 'sustained' bar above) contribution, I would like to ask if people  
> want a poll to be conducted.  I have said that I dislike polls and  
> votes and why, and I would like us to get to the point where we  
> trust other Work Group participants, but we clearly aren't there so  
> if three independent members of this work group would like a poll to  
> be held, I will respect their wishes.  I would like it to be three,  
> and I would them to be independent, but I do not require these three  
> people to explain why the feel a poll is necessary.  If they are  
> members of this work group and say that they wish it, that will be  
> enough for me.
>
> If we can't get three such people to come forward, Chris and I will  
> make an assessment as to whether or not we have sufficient support  
> to proceed.  I don't suspect that this will be a problem as I  
> seriously doubt that we will have a problem finding three such people.
>
> I'd like the poll to be simple: something along the lines of "do you  
> support html5-markup proceeding to FPWD at this time?".  Every  
> Working Group participant will be given an opportunity to vote.  No  
> votes are simply no, not to be assumed to be formal objections.  Yes  
> votes are simply yes, and not to be assumed to be a position of  
> one's employer. Explanations for why one feels this way is not  
> required, and in fact, I'd like to keep the poll simple and not even  
> solicit such comments.
>
> I won't begin to speculate what the process will be after that  
> point, as it will clearly depend on the results.  It might be that  
> Chris and I decide that there is sufficient support, it might be  
> Mike decides to withdraw, it might be that changes are made to the  
> document and we repeat this process again later.
>
> Not as a absolute moratorium: but I would really like to request  
> that people who have already said their piece (pro or con) on the  
> subject of splitting the spec or on Mike's draft proceeding consider  
> not repeating positions that are well understood until after this  
> poll is taken.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 22:15:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC