W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Mozilla Proposal for HTML5 Spec Licence

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:26:58 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
cc: www-archive@w3.org, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104132013460.25791@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 03:01 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> > 
> > ...I haven't been objecting on the W3C side and presumably
> > why the W3C chairs have not been concerned about the divergence in the
> > context of our charter.)
> 
> Speaking only on behalf of THIS chair, I am not only concerned about the
> divergence, I am greatly surprised each and every time you seize on an
> opportunity to widen the divergence

When the W3C chairs make a decision to change the W3C copy of the spec, 
that is the W3C chairs increasing the divergence between the versions of 
the specification, not me. Quite obviously divergence between the specs 
cannot be the fault of the group who's spec is not being changed.


> when implementing over proposals over which ABSOLUTELY NOBODY has 
> objected.

By definition, every issue that is raised on the spec is something I've 
objected to, since if I didn't object, there would be nothing to escalate.


> If you have objections to any future proposal, I will continue to 
> encourage you to state such, and to provide Alternate or Counter 
> proposals whenever you do so.

I find the process this working group is following to be dreadfully 
unwieldly, opaque, and illogical. I have no intention of attempting to 
follow this process for issues that are trivial, as I do not consider that 
a productive use of my time. Furthermore, the low quality of the decisions 
overall does not motivate one to wish to take part in the process. (For 
example, decisions are made that literally nobody thinks makes any sense, 
decisions are made that introduce contradictions in the spec, feedback is 
ignored, decisions have resulted in outside communities thinking that the 
the W3C is making the spec "mediocre", etc.) Why bother taking part if the 
result is just random? (Not all decisions fall into this bucket, but a lot 
of the ones made over the past two or so months do.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 20:27:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:35 GMT