Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

On 1/25/2012 8:04 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> For what it's worth, I did not interpret Ian's original remark as 
> saying he didn't follow W3C process; though I can see how someone may 
> have parsed it in that fashion.

Thanks for the clarification.

>
> In the original thread, nobody was claiming or denying following 
> accepted W3C process. Rather, I was suggesting that certain clauses in 
> the process document be referenced in a proposed warning to add to the 
> DOM2 spec(s). I continue to feel that approach is warranted and 
> consistent with similar statements of status found elsewhere in W3C specs.
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch 
> <mailto:ian@hixie.ch>> wrote:
>
>     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.)
>