Re: Who is the Intended Audience of the Markup Spec Proposal?

On Jan 28, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> [moved to www-archive]
>>>
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>> I personally would prefer the Work Group spends its time  
>>>>> discussing actual tangible proposals.  And to provide everybody  
>>>>> equal opportunity to produce such proposals.
>>>> I think anyone is free to make a proposal, but that doesn't mean  
>>>> we should publish every proposal as a Working Draft.
>>>
>>> This is an example of the a discussion that doesn't lead to HTML5  
>>> becoming a better spec.
>> My goal in this particular discussion is to prevent it from  
>> becoming a worse spec, as I see it. Furthermore, I believe I have  
>> done more than most people to make HTML5 a better spec, and on the  
>> whole I don't think discouraging me from participating in mailing  
>> list discussions will make HTML5 a better spec. I know you have  
>> done much to make HTML5 a better spec as well, I am not trying to  
>> compare credentials, but I do think it is unfair of you to lecture  
>> me on this point.
>
> Your credentials are unquestioned.  It is that one specific  
> statement that borders on a tautology that I am questioning.

My statement was made in light of your suggestion to publish almost  
any reasonable proposal as a Working Draft regardless of objection, as  
long as a small number of people agree. My understanding, and correct  
me if I am wrong, is that you indeed believe that "we should publish  
every proposal as a Working Draft", with only the limitation that it  
be a good-faith proposal with at least a handful of supporters. And I  
also get the impression that you believe that if a proposal is not  
published as Working Draft, then it is by definition not receiving  
fair consideration. If I misunderstood your position, then please help  
me understand. If I understood correctly, then I disagree, and the  
line you quoted states the point of disagreement.

>
>
>>> Nor is it particularly good argument, as it is predicated on a  
>>> fallacy:
>>>
>>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
>> I do not see how my statement is an example of a false dilemma.  
>> Indeed, quite the opposite. I am arguing for the middle ground of  
>> giving proposals due consideration, and publishing those that have  
>> undergone sufficient discussion and review, and which seem  
>> promising enough to put on the standards track, as First Public  
>> Working Drafts. Is there anything unreasonable about that?
>> Has anyone asked Mike to stop editing his document, demanded that  
>> he remove it from W3C space, or refused to engage him on the  
>> technical merits of his approach? To the contrary: many would love  
>> to discuss what he is doing and why it may or may not be the right  
>> thing, but you would like to barrel ahead without having that  
>> discussion.
>
> Can we agree to simply capture the issues and move on?  And to block  
> progress of any and all Working Drafts to the Proposed  
> Recommendation status until all such issues are disposed of one way  
> or another?

No, we cannot agree to this. First of all, all serious known issues  
should be disposed of by, at the very latest, Last Call. Thus, a  
Working Draft should not even be in a position to proceed to PR if  
serious disagreements remain unresolved. Further, I think some issues  
are of sufficient gravity that they should be raised and discussed  
before even the First Public Working Draft, and issues such as  
appropriate scope or "should this even exist as a normative  
specification" are in this category.

Indeed, you and fellow co-Chair Chris Wilson both availed yourselves  
of the opportunity to raise these kinds of issues as part of the  
process of taking HTML5 to FPWD, and indeed sought to prevent  
publication until some of them were resolved to your satisfaction.  
While you both ultimately backed off in your opposition, I believe you  
were given more than ample opportunity to be heard.

Are you going to allow others the same opportunity?

>> If you think I am making weak arguments, then by all means, show me  
>> why. But so far, you haven't directly engaged any of my substantive  
>> points, instead diverting into this meta-meta-meta-discussion of  
>> whether I should be making them.
>>> The current process disenfranchises many.  Perhaps not you, but  
>>> many.
>> Have you considered whether you may be disenfranchising those who  
>> disagree with you by forbidding them to even discuss the reasons  
>> for their disagreement, or to propose alternate ways of proceeding  
>> and giving justification for their stance?
>
> I would like to enable more people to pursue alternate ways of  
> proceeding.

But ultimately, some alternatives are mutually exclusive. Either there  
are multiple documents normatively specifying the same thing, or there  
are not. Either there are disjoint specs for content producers and  
content consumers (or some other non-feature-based line of division)  
or not. At some point these decisions have to be made.

I believe that publishing an explicitly non-normative markup-only spec  
is something almost everyone in the Working Group could agree on as a  
first step, if we agree to later revisit the issue of whether it  
should become a normative specification in its own right, once it has  
had all the review and input we would like to expose it to. It seems  
wiser to me to proceed with this widely agreeable compromise, rather  
than to push a more controversial approach. I have not seen any  
comments from you on that proposed approach.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 13:41:24 UTC