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

Re: Selectors API naming

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:32:30 -0500
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Nicolas Mendoza" <mendoza@pvv.ntnu.no>
Cc: "Jon Ferraiolo" <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, João Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>, "Web APIs WG" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tmrmogyvwxe0ny@30-5-51.wireless.csail.mit.edu>

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:18:20 -0500, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> My point is that the process by which the names were obtained is not a
> good one, IMHO.

Probably not. But the process that was followed for the last two months, of
attempting to see something other than violent disagreement emerging in  
both
public and private, was showing no signs of being productive.

I am chair of the group, and therefore have some responsibility to try and  
get
the group's work items finished in finite time. I am also the person that
various people complain to, or blame, if the group does something  
unconscionably
bad. In my judgement, getting the spec out, with at least the agreement of  
the
Working Group, was a useful thing to do, and that required settling a  
naming
issue in a way that would get it through the working group.

That's how W3C works - if the Working Group gets stalled on some kind of  
issue,
the spec doesn't go forward. So the essential process was to take  
something that
the working group would agree to, and that in our collective judgement  
(and in
my judgement as chair) was acceptable to as many people as possible in the  
wider
community. In the current context we are talking about a small handful of  
people
representing a company's opinion, and a small handful of individuals (both
inside the Working Group and in the marginally broader debate), and trying  
to
extrapolate from that what "the community" might think.

When we get to last call, you (and the rest of the world) are free to  
raise an
issue on the name which will be recorded, of course. If there is an outcry
against the names, and another candidate emerges which can get consensus  
in the
working group (e.g. by having clear consensus behind it rather than the  
kind of
split that has characterised the proposals so far) then our plan of record  
is to
change (it is unfortunate Anne didn't manage to communicate that in his  
email.
But given the nature of the debate, I am dubious about the prospects  
anyway).

Equally, given the nature of the debate, I am reluctant to keep burning
resources on it. There are various other specifications and tests that  
would be
more useful to the public.

Sorry to those whose favourite name didn't get chosen,
and I am sorry if people feel their opinion wasn't given the weight it  
deserved.
I tried to find a balance, to appropriate weight to what I saw "the  
community"
saying, and get on with the work at hand.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com Try Opera 9.1 http://opera.com
Received on Friday, 26 January 2007 14:33:50 GMT

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