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

On Jan 28, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Closer.
>
> I see a vast difference between "every proposal" to "reasonable  
> proposal".  I also continue to see a vast difference between "agree"  
> and "and will agree to review and comment on the document".  A  
> difference between "I'm not stopping you" and "I'm engaged".

I believe that Mike's review has gotten a great deal of review and  
commentary. In fact, I believe it has gotten quite a bit more from  
those who would prefer not to publish it as FPWD, than from those who  
would. Some of those issues are, however, fundamental to the nature of  
the document.

> For others joining this thread, here is the original proposal:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0414.html
>
> As near as I can tell, the process for FPWD is was designed to  
> enable widespread review, and not as a choke point.  I'm confident  
> that there are mailing lists at the W3c where discussions as to  
> whether or not FPWD are necessary or even a good idea can be held.   
> Until such is done, I'd like this working group to operate under the  
> assumption that they are.

I still do not agree that our default assumption should be to proceed  
to FPWD with any spec that passes the most basic threshold of  
reasonableness. I'm not sure further discussion will lead to us  
agreeing on this point. Ultimately we have to leave it to the Working  
Group to decide in some fashion, either as to this FPWD or as to all  
future proposed Working Drafts.

>>>>> 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?
>
> I believe I addressed all of the above in another email:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0469.html
>
> I used words which were unclear, you asked for a clarification, and  
> I have provided it.

It still sounds to me like you are unwilling to give others the same  
opportunity for input that you yourself had and took advantage of  
before becoming co-Chair.

>
>> 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'm merely suggesting that FPWD is not that point.

I strongly disagree that PR is that point. And I believe these issues  
are reasonable to at least discuss before FPWD. Since your expectation  
of the right point to discuss this seems to be unreasonably late in  
the process, then I would prefer to see objections voiced sooner  
rather than later.

>
>
>> 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.
>
> If this were applied consistently to all WDs, I might understand  
> that argument.  But I have zero interest in requesting that such a  
> criteria be applied to Hixie's draft.

Since the Working Group already voted overwhelmingly to place the  
HTML5 draft on the REC track as normative, I don't think there would  
be any point to applying those criteria.

>  And even if I did not have that issue, the thought asking reviewers  
> to review drafts which are explicitly and intentionally not written  
> as they are intended is counter-productive. I'd like to echo the  
> suggestion made by Larry:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0311.html
>
> Let's ask that all working drafts make explicit notes of  
> controversies, and do so in a straightforward, non-histrionic way  
> and get on with the business of this working group which at this  
> point is to publish working drafts.

I agree that Larry's proposed note should be added in any case, even  
to the current Editor's Draft. I'm not sure whether I would vote yes  
or no on such a draft. It would depend on the wording.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 23:33:52 UTC