Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> 
> 2. Nonetheless, for situations that he is wearing his hat as Editor within a
> W3C Working Group, he agrees to follow the W3C Process.

My original statement was: "Nobody really follows the W3C process. Some 
claim to, others (such as myself) do not."

To be more explicit: Nobody always follows the W3C process. Some claim to, 
others do not claim to. I do not claim to. Those who claim to tend to 
bring up the process when it helps their political needs, and ignore it 
when that is more convenient. Those who do not claim to tend to argue for 
their cases on technical merit instead. Bjoern has in the past written 
long missives documenting the many ways that people who claim to follow 
the process blithely ignore it when it's convenient.

That isn't to say that everything I do violates the W3C process. On the 
contrary, sometimes I follow it more closely than W3C staff (e.g. the 
process requires chaters to describe the milestones for deliverables; W3C 
staff usually instead write woefully optimistic fiction even when I have 
provided them with realistic predictions).

I do not agree to follow the W3C process blindly.

I follow it, like everyone else, exactly to the extent that I think it 
requires us to do the right thing for the Web. When the process requires 
us to do something bad for the Web, I ignore it.

(This is why, for example, I do not participate in the work required to 
make copies of the specs I work on for the TR/ page.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 00:30:34 UTC