Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio>

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> 
> Feedback delivered through private channels is not a problem, as long as 
> it can be repeated in public. The problem is with feedback that comes 
> with confidentiality strings attached, because in that case public 
> scrutiny is permanently disabled.
> 
> If I ask you for a change in the spec, but I forbid you to reveal the 
> reason for the change, then you should reject it. If I forbid you to 
> reveal my identity, then my identity should be given no weight (so 
> feedback that depends on my identity, e.g. saying "I won't implement 
> this", should be ignored).
> 
> If I privately point out a flaw in your design, then if someone else 
> proposes that design you need to be able to tell them about the flaw. If 
> the design was already in the spec and you remove it or change it, you 
> need to be able to explain the flaw if anyone asks you why. If you think 
> removing or changing the design would be controversial or impact authors 
> or implementors, I hope you'd actually announce the change and the 
> reason --- as you normally seem to do.
> 
> If the only impact of the feedback is early termination or alteration of 
> your own ideas, before they even appear in public, then that's fine. 
> Your thoughts are your own, public scrutiny is only required for changes 
> to public artifacts.

I completely agree with all of the above.

In particular:

> If I ask you for a change in the spec, but I forbid you to reveal the 
> reason for the change, then you should reject it.

...that's exactly what happened in this case.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Sunday, 5 July 2009 23:47:45 UTC