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

Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-05-21

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 13:42:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4A1592A1.60309@intertwingly.net>
To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Rob Sayre wrote:
> On 5/21/09 10:09 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Larry Masinter wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not satisfied with the Sam's suggested "Process for Proposals", 
>>> as it
>>> is at odds with the W3C process, and subject to manipulations that are
>>> inconsistent with a transparent open standards process.
>>
>> Any process is subject to manipulations. That's why we have chairs, 
>> domain leaders, etc. If you believe that I have been other than 
>> transparent and open, I ask that you say so now. As to being 'at odds 
>> with the W3C process'... while I will grant that this working group is 
>> operating in a novel and unique way, and has done so since well before 
>> I assumed co-chairmanship, I can find nothing in the W3C process 
>> documentation that would support such a claim.
> 
> "The HTML5 work isnít using the traditional W3C approach, and will never 
> use a consensus approach so long as I am editor. Consensus simply isnít 
> a good way to get technically solid specifications, and is in any case 
> basically impossible to achieve in a group with hundreds of participants 
> such as this one." - Ian Hickson [1]
> 
> That statement seems straightforwardly at odds with the W3C process, 
> where consensus is listed as a core value.

Consensus is a core value[2] - agreed.

Consensus is not a requirement for Working Drafts[3].

I see no such exception for Last Call[4].  While I wish the W3C 
documents said so more explicitly, my interpretation is that consensus 
is a pre-req for Last Call, and I am proceeding under that assumption.

Not having consensus on interim Working Drafts does not mean that we may 
not have consensus on the result.  I happen to know of one group that 
consistently achieves such results, and I am attempting to apply my 
knowledge of such a process here[5].

It is entirely possible that such a process will fail.  I happen to 
believe that there is enough of a possibility for success that I am 
devoting a considerable amount of my time to doing so.

My focus for the first half of this year has been on removing barriers 
to participation - real or perceived.  My focus on the second half of 
the year will be on working with what we have got.  The line between 
those two phases is a fuzzy one.

If you know of any barriers that are stopping you from participating on 
this list or stopping you from making concrete proposals, please let me 
know.  And by that statement, I am not intending to single you out, it 
applies to everyone.

- Sam Ruby

> - Rob
> 
> [1] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/11/20/Half-Full#c12273175611

[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Consensus
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
[5] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:43:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT