Re: snapshots in CfC Re: CfC: Publish a FPWD of "Requirements for Powerful Features"

I take the general point; CfCs should be tied to specific documents, not
whatever happens to be the last thing I uploaded. I'll ensure that happens
next time I poke a the list for a formal measurement of consensus.

That said, tip-of-tree has some nice improvements over Monday's document,
based on feedback from both you and Brad. I'm happy to put up a snapshot
from Monday, but I'd prefer to publish a snapshot from today.

Perhaps we can chat about what makes sense on Monday's call.

-mike

--
Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:54 PM, <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

>
>
> 25.11.2014, 18:13, "John Kemp" <john@jkemp.net>:
> > Hi Chaals,
> >
> > On 11/25/2014 06:54 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> >>  TL;DR: Please go ahead.
> >>  24.11.2014, 23:20, "Mike West" <mkwst@google.com>:
> >>>  On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Brad Hill <hillbrad@fb.com
> >>>  <mailto:hillbrad@fb.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      I've made a pull request to formalize the tone a bit.  Pending
> that or
> >>>      similar updates by the editor, I support the publication of this
> >>>      draft.
> >>>
> >>>  Thank you! I accepted the pull, cleaned up a few bits, and
> >>>  republished: http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/
> >>  It is really helpful in a call for consensus to have a URL to a
> >>  snapshot.
> >
> > FWIW, you can review the commits made, individually if you so desire, by
> > going to https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/commits/master
>
> Sure. I did that and in this case it seems fine to me. But given a change
> of a few dozen lines, it is not always clear what a "consensus" is if it is
> determined by statements made about different documents at different times
> - it's generally easier to agree on something if everyone is agreeing on
> the same thing. For people on a differenc
>
> >>  Consensus to publish "whatever was there when I looked" is
> >>  actually seriously weakened if you can change what is there (this is
> >>  security 101, right?).
> >
> > One thing that might improve the process is even for the spec editors to
> > work in branches and issue Git pull requests back to master. The pull
> > requests can be reviewed as a whole, or by looking at individual
> > commits, prior to the reviewed pull request being merged to master.
>
> It's simpler than that - in general, people can follow the entire history
> if they want to see each commit, or look at review drafts if they don't
> have that kind of time.
>
> It's just a case of not mixing the two…
>
> cheers
>
> > - johnk
> >>  That said, I think the changes I saw (up until about 15 minutes before
> I
> >>  sent this mail) were helpful, and support publishing either way.
> >>>  <http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/><
> http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/>
> >>>  Regarding the issue #2 you added, 'blob:' has an origin, as does
> >>>  'data:'. What clarification do you think is necessary in the algorithm
> >>>  in order to resolve the issue?
> >>  cheers
> >>  Chaals
> >>  --
> >>  Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> >>  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>