W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

Re: review process [was: identify...]

From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:32:15 -0800
Message-ID: <38AC5ACF.B75FAEC0@eng.sun.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>, www-html@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> Arjun Ray wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > > As with anybody else, the WG's obligation to me is to
> > >       -- convince me to withdraw
> > >       -- accept my suggestion, or
> > >       -- escalate the issue
> >
> > I read this and paused.  I got up and took a walk.  By the time I sat
> > down again, it was clear that you have no idea - absolutely none
> > whatsoever - how utterly *outrageous* this is.
> 
> Why is it outrageous to say that the WG is obligated to seek consensus
> among the community of reviewers, and escalate if they feel it's
> time to move on without it? IETF WGs have had this obligation
> for decades, and I haven't seen any objection to it. c.f

Really simple: you've expanded the scope of required consensus from 
simply the WG and the internal review mechanisms within the W3C to 
the entire world, where you know quite well there will never be a
consensus. There never can be a consensus in such a wide forum with
no process or rules for creating consensus. If you wanted a public
process like the IETF, XHTML should have been created within the IETF. 
I think it's pretty amazing to hear you reference the IETF process,
when the W3C explicitly has a different one. As you well know.

I'm beginning to see your strategy: move discussions into as wide a
forum as possible, then let them die in endless discussion. I don't
see every other W3C spec undergoing such a long and painful death,
and I see little reason to follow you through this idiocy, which is
unjustified by W3C process, regardless of your attempts to convince 
us otherwise. The W3C does *not* seek public consensus on its 
specifications, for better or worse. If it did, nothing would ever
reach Recommendation. Is that the reason why we're discussing removal
of public identifiers?

The HTML WG has already answered your comment to the extent that it
can be answered, and certainly to my and others' satisfaction. If 
as you say our options are no longer to do anything than climb over
you (since you won't step aside and we can't go around you), then 
obviously you have a very special status as reviewer. 
 
Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                            <mailto:altheim&#x40;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

   the honey bee is sad and cross and wicked as a weasel 
   and when she perches on you boss she leaves a little measle -- archy
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 15:32:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT