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

Re: Mozilla Proposal for HTML5 Spec Licence

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:06:39 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA6105F.6010107@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
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>
On 04/13/2011 04:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.)

I'll simply note that this is the process that we all agreed to without 
objections, and that we intend to continue to follow it, and that we 
will continue to encourage everybody in the working group to do so.

I'll also note that there is a process for raising Formal Objections to 
each and every decision.

Finally, I will thank you for taking this conversation off of public-html.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 21:06:59 GMT

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