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

Re: Selectors API naming

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:48:31 +0100
Message-Id: <FC606C14-FE9C-4073-852B-D752DBAD93DA@berjon.com>
Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Jan 25, 2007, at 21:18, Ian Hickson wrote:
> I think the mailing list is fine. However, I don't see that the  
> current
> decision is any closer to the community's consensus opinion than  
> Anne's
> own compromise proposal, and therefore I don't understand why the  
> working
> group would override the editor on this.

Precisely. There is no consensus. That's easy to see. There wasn't  
going to be a consensus. Given that, it is the group's job to make an  
executive decision, and the editor really has no say in this, except  
in that s/he is part of the group.

It is excessively clear to me that the WG went to great lengths to  
discuss this topic entirely openly with the public. This has been on  
the public table for over one month, with dozens of messages  
exchanged, and participation from both WG members and the community  
at large. In many cases this process has provided quality output, but  
on occasion, as everyone knows, it fails. And when it does, a  
different process is needed. You can cry out your shallow populism by  
talking about things taking place "behind closed doors" and in full  
opacity, it nevertheless remains that the WG did the right thing.

> It raises a bad precedent. If the
> editor is to be overriden on every little thing -- especially in cases
> like this, where we're moving from a set of names that a minority  
> liked to
> another set of names that a different minority likes -- then we should
> change the editor, as it indicates that the editor is not being  
> trusted by
> the working group.

Quite frankly, that is total bollocks. The WebAPI has always been a  
strongly editor-driven. The process is normally this: an editor comes  
up with a draft, if there's consensus it's good, and if there isn't  
consensus the WG needs to make a decision (something which is usually  
done by asking this list for input). The "size" of the thing doesn't  
matter  otherwise there would need to be consensus on how important  
it is, which is endless  it's a simple matter of consensus. It  
certainly is not a matter of trusting the editor, no one can get  
consensus on everything, so whoever takes on the charge of being  
editor knows they'll be overruled on occasion.

But of course if you actually participated in the WG as your  
membership allows you to instead of wasting everyone's time with  
uninspired drive-by comments on process, you'd know that already.

> (I don't think we should change the editor -- I think
> Anne is doing a fine job. I think the working group should let him  
> do his
> job without micromanaging the names.)

There is no micromanagement. No consensus means group decision, end  
of story. I don't think the WG needs you micromanaging its process  
thank you very much.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My whole life is waiting for the questions to which I have
  prepared answers."
             -- Tom Stoppard
Received on Friday, 26 January 2007 10:48:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:56 GMT