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

Re: [selectors-api] The Naming Debate

From: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:17:41 +0200
Message-ID: <6c97b8b10706272217u40a1b0fds7205bc15a9ecfd5a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>

2007/6/28, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>:
> 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.

Ok, thanks so that means it is normal to not inform people about
decisions on the mailing list, right?

> > 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.

I didn't know that. Sorry, I misunderstood.
I'm still not really too fond with the way this was handled, but I was
under the impression that this was something that was voted upon.
Sorry guys, I owe you, Lachlan and Charles (and probably more people)
an apology...

> 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
> deadlock."
> 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.

Well, the only natural name for me is getElementsBySelector and from
what I read on irc from Lachlan, that is not going to happen, so there
is nothing for me to debate, is there?

> > 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.

Hmm, yeah, sort of ;)

> > 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.

Like I said before, I misunderstood.
Thanks for your explanation!


> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Votes
> Regards-
> -Doug
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 05:18:12 UTC

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