W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-whatwg-contrib@w3.org > April 2012

Re: now I understand the plan

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:57:59 -0700
Cc: 'David Singer' <singer@apple.com>, 'Steve Faulkner' <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, public-whatwg-contrib@w3.org
Message-id: <6ADB5DB9-C6F5-461B-961D-C99FF5C1DA8D@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>

On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:08 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> David Singer wrote:
>> 
>> Ian's choice of words is sometimes not optimal, usually terse, and
>> occasionally audience-specific. 
> 
> As an editor and relatively intelligent guy, Hixie's words are rarely
> ill-chosen - he knows exactly and specifically what he is saying, how he is
> saying it, and what kind of audience and reaction his words will get. That
> he can be extremely inflammatory and often outright wrong is also true.
> 
>> In this case, he's reassuring the non-
>> W3C whatwg contributors that they will continue to find the same welcome
>> for their involvement and help.  Don't let it deter the w3c
>> participants!
> 
> It could also be perceived as a continued finger to "the man", and that work
> inside this group will be identical to what preceded it at WHAT WG - ie: his
> word is the final word, to hell with process, and don't let those who
> disagree with Ian's perception get in the way of Ian's work - all known
> problems today. One need to only read the comments on Ian's commits to HTML5
> to see his disdain for W3C process overall, and his outright contempt for
> those that disagree with his vision.
> (see: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7057&to=7058) 
> 
> (...and BTW, "they're ugly" is not a use-case, but rather a value judgment.
> There is no such thing as an accessible accessibility failure, despite
> arguments to the contrary).
> 
> Steve, I am sticking with this group, if only to ensure that HTML.next work
> doesn't go as off-the-track as early HTML5 work did because many were
> otherwise occupied elsewhere. Vigilance is key.

I'm expecting the CG to operate in accordance with the CG process rules:
<http://www.w3.org/community/about/faq/>
<http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/>

It's also my understanding that the CG will reuse existing whatwg resources, such as the existing whatwg@whatwg.org mailing list, as is allowed by the process.

Note, though, that CGs have a very lightweight set of process requirements, and are not, as a general rule, required to follow the W3C Process or to have consensus-based decision making. Please read the above cited documents so your expectations are said correctly.

Note also that a CG cannot directly produce W3C Standards. It can publish CG Specifications, and can give input to WGs that publish standards.

With all that said, I should also note that this list is not the appropriate venue for process discussion. public-whatwg-contrib is a list that exists exclusively for text to be contributed to the CG, with full applicability of the CLA patent license. Please take further process discussion to www-archive. Follow-ups set.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 00:58:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 July 2012 12:30:25 GMT