W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Editorial Control

From: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:55:41 -0500
Message-ID: <45B9275D.9060100@schepers.cc>
To: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>

Hi, Ian-

Ian Hickson wrote:
> As you say, the WG here just moved from one minority opinion to another 
> minority opinion. So this isn't a case where Anne's decision was not 
> representative of the wider community.

You're implying with the term "minority opinion" that there was a 
"majority opinion" (there wasn't), which is misleading.  In this case, 
Anne's opinion was also at odds with past naming conventions, which 
would decrease API consistency.

> Given those two points, I don't see why the WG would override the editor 
> on this case.

The WG didn't override the editor.  The issue was raised in public, and 
had proponents on both sides, both WG members and other interested 
parties.  The WG merely settled the issue, based in part on public feedback.

> (And yes, I think a benign dictator (Anne) answerable to a committee (the 
> WG) and representing the wider community will create far better 
> specifications than a committee (the WG) answerable to a dictator (TBL) 
> and representing the interests of only the companies involved.)

Great, so we agree that the WG has the final say, not the editor.

>> Someone needed to settle the discussion, and those of us who attended 
>> the meeting did so.
> What makes those of us who can afford to pay the W3C membership fee and 
> afford to attend the meetings more entitled to make this decision than the 
> rest of the community, or than the editor? 

The meeting can be attended by all WG members (or other W3C members who 
make the request) via phone or IRC.  This includes Invited Experts, 
whose only "fee" is that they have specific expertise.

I'm not qualified to judge whether the W3C should be more open to 
non-paying members, but I do wonder where their operating costs would 
come from if it were completely free.

And the editor, in this case, does work for a paying member company (and 
he is paid to write specs), so I'm not sure why you think this would be 
more egalitarian or non-capitalist.

Received on Thursday, 25 January 2007 21:56:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:22 UTC