- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:05:25 +0200
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Mike Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 22:52, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> On Jun 17, 2019, at 21:48, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> The W3C Process as practices today evolved at a time when the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model was dogma > > You are right that the software industry as a whole has moved away from Waterfall I dispute the claim the the web platform as a whole was ever under the waterfall model, ever since multiple browsers have existed. For sure, some features were developed spec-first-implement-later in the past. Some are also done this way in the present. In both cases, we then revisit the spec after implementations exist to make the two converge. However, in that same past, there were also features that were implement-first-spec-later. We have got better at writing specs, we have got better at writing implementations, we have got better at iterating on them, but there was no point in the history of the web where everything was waterfalls. So we need to need our process to get better because all our practices get better, and there's no reason the process should lag behind. This is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rest of the world should get a chance to comment on what we do at a phase where it is still useful to do so, to let us know when the way we're trying to do things has overlooked some important use case. —Florian
Received on Monday, 17 June 2019 21:05:57 UTC