Re: Multi-headed indirect links
Gavin Nicol wrote:
> >> At least within the ERB, the general design approach
> >> appears to be remarkably uncontroversial.
> >It's a pity that doesn't become more apparent to the list members who
> >are not members of the ERB. A more open process is wanted and needed.
> I agree at least partly with this sentiment. One reason for a limited
> WG mailing list is to avoid the noise caused by ignorance (ie. let's
> not repeat HTML-WG).
> I think both Len and I remember the VRML-VAG....
As does Tim and we all have the archives. One thing I will
give the VRML community credit for, particularly in draft 1.0, it was
sometimes cold, but the list principals stayed on the
list day and night hammering out the proposal, then
spent a long time, helping the newbies understand. The
formation of the VAG made some of us uncomfortable, and
there was this tendancy to discard people's ideas only
to see them resurrected later in a VAG member's posts
without proper attribution. In the long run, a good
spec and a profitable industry were formed. If one
thing has characterized the VRML community, it has
been a remarkable level of cooperation, not without flaws
and even some wicked intrigues, but on the whole, open.
Without malice and certainly without malevolence, I say to
keep us involved, keep us informed. If Eliot's proposal
is the core of the draft, then let's go over it
in detail. It may be helpful. If it isn't, it
is at least open ignorance and anyone who can't
deal with that shouldn't work in a list community.
It's like expecting a hearty round of applause
after every song: it doesn't work that way.
When a draft is being written, put it on a web page.
If a draft is about to be written, give us an
estimate of when we can begin to review it and
the process for consolidation of comments.
It's hard and time consuming. That is what the editors
and ERB members signed up for. If not, that was
painfully naive. Consider the impact: it will be a
lot louder than the draft hitting the floor at SGML 96.