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

Re: [selectors-api] The Naming Debate

From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:33:32 -0400
Message-ID: <46833A1C.5090603@vectoreal.com>
To: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>

Hi, Martijn-

Martijn wrote:
> 2007/6/28, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>:
>> Martijn wrote:
>> >
>> > Sorry, I meant that I won't participate anymore.
>> > I'm just getting unhappy by this and it's affecting the work that I
>> > really should be doing.
>> I'm very sorry to hear that.  I don't want you to feel like you were
>> forced out of the process, and I hope that with time you will
>> participate again.
> I do feel I was forced out of the process. 

No, no one has been forced out of the process.  If you choose not to 
participate, it's unfortunate, but it is your choice.

> Apparently things were
> decided without informing anyone subscribed on the mailing list.

Decisions get made all the time without informing the public list.  The 
decision to create this spec in the first place was not a public 
decision.  Most of the wording and functionality of the spec was the 
work of a small group of people.  Only when an issue is raised does the 
debate start.

> Informing people on the decision progress is an essential thing.
> How could this happen? It should have never happened.

It happened through a miscommunication and through an inconclusive 
decision process.  It's unfortunate in my view, but it's not something 
to lose sleep over, in this case.

> The issue was voted upon, there was an outcome.

No, there was no vote.  I was in the room, so I think I would know.  The 
names that were chosen by the group were selected by group process of 
elimination, not by voting.

As it says in the process document [1], "A group should only conduct a 
vote to resolve a substantive issue after the Chair has determined that 
all available means of reaching consensus through technical discussion 
and compromise have failed, and that a vote is necessary to break a 

The keys there are "substantive" and "compromise".  This is *not* a 
substantive issue; the functionality remains the same.  And the means by 
which the names where chosen was a kind of compromise, as is the process 
going on now.  Several people are not thrilled with the new names, but 
they aren't pressing it further; if you think you can come up with a new 
name that hasn't been considered, and which you think will satisfy the 
most or all of the people involved, by all means submit it.  This spec 
is not even in FPWD (First Public Working Draft) yet, nothing is set in 
stone... but judging from the heat of this debate, I'd say you'd have to 
come up with a pretty compelling set of names.

> Now, the opposite is being done of what the outcome was.

Actually, that's not true.  The new names are a substantial improvement 
over get() and getAll(), as well as most of the other alternatives.

> I can't believe that is normal. How often does that happen within the W3C?

About as often as you might expect in a loosely-run group of enormous 
size and of diverse opinions where everyone contributes.

You win some, you lose some... I'm personally going to save my energy 
for something more important to me.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Votes

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 04:33:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC