W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2012

Re: not safe

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:58:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM=Pv=T=sWEqnE_BQNeSv=oG4wO69SoJPJ8m+s9cvagNKpFAJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Morning after, I'm maybe a bit more coherent. Bijan, thanks for your
response, duly noted.
Sam, I realise I used charged words, but I don't actually feel the
need to retract anything - ok maybe the choice of specific words, but
not the sentiment. If you believe this violates procedure, so be it.

As blogged:
http://dannyayers.com/2012/10/26/Rage-against-the-Hixie

RAGE AGAINST THE HIXIE
Last night I posted an email to list objecting strongly to a post by
Hixie. I broke protocol. I ranted, took it personal, I basically
called him a fascist, no doubt swore a bit too. But unlike many
previous occasions when I've got on my high horse about stuff after a
few glasses of wine, no shame this morning, I'm quite pleased I went
that far, it really has got beyond pleasantries. Trying on a one-man
coup as acceptable behaviour makes my sweariness pale into
insignificance.

I immediately got kick-back from danbri, Bijan and the other (list
gov) Ian. Danbri made the point that although Hixie might have been
into eugenics in the past, he should be given the space to change.
Fine - but I see no counter-arguments from those beliefs in recent
times. Couple those beliefs with the evidence of a wish to take sole
control... danbri quoted Godwin's law at me. In response, I have to
say: if it quacks like a duck and, er, steps like a goose.

So onto the meat:

In the first paragraph, Ian associates consensus with the perjorative
term "design by committee". That's just disingenous. For standards to
even remotely work for all interested parties, those parties need to
have some power over decisions. It will be always be a suboptimal
compromise, but...well wait, he has an alternative.

One person. I wonder who he might have in mind.

He makes a fair point with "consensus amongst those who bothered to
show up", but personally I believe that's a positive, the people that
turn up have some kind of commitment to the matter at hand. In fact,
here is he not saying "I'm prepared to show up enough that I can take
this all off your hands".

Personally I also agree that "[specs] should be designed so that they
end up solving real problems" - but isn't that a redundant statement?
Why bother if they didn't?

I can see where he's coming from with: "I need to make sure that
whatever I spec is something that the bulk of implementors want to
implement, otherwise it goes nowhere." The only problem I see with
that is, well the "I".

Please don't get me wrong, I do have huge respect for Hixie's brain,
for technical stuff I feel C-list in comparison. But when it comes to
big picture stuff, I probably have a slight advantage over many folks
that spend their days with noses in code. I've seen political
machinations in many other contexts, I know an attempted land grab
when I see it.

But ok, assuming Hixies motivation is noble (is clearly committed, but
I'm suggesting misguided) - there's an easy test. Would he be prepared
to stand down and allow someone else to take that place? (noting there
are plenty of capable candidates in the WHATWG)


-- 
http://dannyayers.com

http://webbeep.it  - text to tones and back again
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 15:58:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC