W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:19:33 -0700
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-webapps@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Message-Id: <F2AA5BAC-3E0D-4CA4-A9FC-F88BD819F176@mozilla.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:

[much appreciated information snipped -- thanks!]

> I really don't see how the review process and accountability could  
> be much more open for the development of Web IDL elsewhere, nor is  
> the burden on reviewers that large... it would simply be one more  
> low-traffic mailing list.  Are there other barriers you see?

I alluded to employers who are not currently paying W3C members not  
wanting their employees participating, even individually. I'll let one  
notable example that I know of speak for himself.

The "mailing list as firehose" problem can be solved with enough work,  
but with two standards groups there is always greater risk of  
conflict, and just competition for attention. Two lists is simply one  
more list than one list to keep up with.

This is a price of collaboration at wider scale, so don't let me stand  
in the way, since I've been explicit about being in favor of  
collaboration.

W3C and Ecma both have transparency issues, but I don't expect those  
to be fixed easily. I mentioned them ("People in dark-glass houses ...  
[should not throw stones]") in reply to Maciej asserting greater  
openness on one side. Again this is not a "barrier" I'm trying to take  
down right now.

/be
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 22:20:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT