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

Re: [selectors-api] The Naming Debate

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:53:43 +0200
To: "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>, Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tulwrt0dwxe0ny@pc052.coreteam.oslo.opera.com>

Hi guys,

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:03:26 +0200, Doug Schepers  
<doug.schepers@vectoreal.com> wrote:

> Martijn wrote:
>>  2007/6/27, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>:
>>>
>>> I could not agree more with this sentiment.  I know of no reason this
>>> issue should have been reopened, since there was no new evidence.  But
>>> ultimately, it is not that important, which makes it all the more
>>> frustrating that it was reopened and effort was wasted.
>>  Yeah, this is a "me too".
>> However, I do think this is important.
>> So basically, I'm just really unhappy about this.
>> Just posting a new proposal, without even mentioning about what was
>> decided before, it's just very frustrating to me :(
>> I feel being treated very unfairly :(
>
> I understand and sympathize with your frustration.  But I'd ask you to  
> consider the relative weight of the importance of the naming convention.
>
> In my view, it is far more important that this API be specified and  
> implemented (and made available to authors) than to continue the debate  
> about names.

I am sorry. I suspect as chair that I failed to ensure that the issues  
were sufficiently clearly marked.

It seemed to me that while the meeting which decided on names had reached  
a consensus among those present, we failed to establish a consensus on  
naming amongst the group at large. I therefore asked Lachy to try and do  
so. And I think he did an admirable job - as shown by the fact that for  
the first time I have not seen someone say "we really cannot live with  
these names and will block consensus if necessary". Whether they are  
perfect is, IMHO, immaterial, since the chances of that happening and of  
us still thinking they were perfect in 10 years time are vanshingly close  
to zero. That they are generally acceptable is what matters so we can  
publish a spec and people can get on with implementing and using it.

...

> If anything, I contend that reopening an issue that was closed by the  
> group had the potential to block progress, and that the editor is  
> fortunate that others have not sought to press the issue.  That some  
> people were not happy with the naming convention decided by the group  
> was insufficient cause to reopen the issue, since an equal number of  
> people are now unhappy with the new names; it's worth saying that  
> consensus is not the same as unanimity, but is a process whereby people  
> decide the manner in which they will cooperate toward a mutually  
> beneficial end.

I held the issue open because I had been told by people that the  
resolution we had reached for was in fact unacceptable. I am very happy  
(and grateful to all concerned) that so far the new proposal hasn't  
suffered that problem, and hopeful that this will allow us to proceed -  
less than six months (!) after all the substantive issues seem to have  
been settled...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com    Catch up: Speed Dial   http://opera.com
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 00:54:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT