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

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:07:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4ABBFBCB.7000206@w3.org>
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-webapps@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Hi, Brendan-

Brendan Eich wrote (on 9/24/09 6:19 PM):
> On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>
>> I really don't see how the review process and accountability could be
>> much more open for the development of Web IDL elsewhere, nor is the
>> burden on reviewers that large... it would simply be one more
>> low-traffic mailing list. Are there other barriers you see?
>
> I alluded to employers who are not currently paying W3C members not
> wanting their employees participating, even individually. I'll let one
> notable example that I know of speak for himself.

I see.  I concede that this is a problem, and seems to be based on some 
bad history.  It's very unfortunate, and if there is a way I can help 
overcome that, please let me know.  It's possible there is some way of 
putting that past behind us.


> The "mailing list as firehose" problem can be solved with enough work,
> but with two standards groups there is always greater risk of conflict,
> and just competition for attention. Two lists is simply one more list
> than one list to keep up with.

I see it just the opposite... it's an opportunity for those who want to 
be involved in one particular aspect of the much larger 
Javascript-API-Webtech discussion to do so without being overwhelmed. 
There are only a few people who can devote the time and energy to follow 
most of the discussions, and even fewer who have the breadth of interest 
and attention span to wade through looking for those bits they are 
interested in.  Prefixing subject lines helps, but a mailing list is so 
much better.

Admittedly, awareness of the list would initially be a problem, but by 
posting the discussion list address in the spec, and by referring to it 
in other lists and forums, the interested parties would find their way 
there.


> This is a price of collaboration at wider scale, so don't let me stand
> in the way, since I've been explicit about being in favor of collaboration.
>
> W3C and Ecma both have transparency issues, but I don't expect those to
> be fixed easily. I mentioned them ("People in dark-glass houses ...
> [should not throw stones]") in reply to Maciej asserting greater
> openness on one side. Again this is not a "barrier" I'm trying to take
> down right now.

I have no opinion on ECMA's openness, but I am an activist for W3C's 
openness, and I'm optimistic about it.  But maybe I live in a 
rose-colored glass house. :)

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 23:08:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT