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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:10:01 -0600
Message-ID: <38AC71B9.CDF6382B@w3.org>
To: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
CC: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>, www-html@w3.org
Murray Altheim wrote:
> The HTML WG has already answered your comment to the extent that it
> can be answered, and certainly to my and others' satisfaction.

If you'll kindly confirm that you've accepted my request that the
system identifier in all XHTML documents refer to the same place in URI
space
(i.e. get rid of the bit about modifying it "as appropriate"),
you may note that I've withdrawn my request to remove the FPI
in my message of Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:49:11 -0600:

|Murray Altheim wrote:
|> This is really quite simple. Let us keep using:
|> 
|>     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
|>     "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/1999/WD-xhtml-basic-19991125"
|
|I find that acceptable


> 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,

The scope of required consensus has been larger than the WG since day 1:
The W3C membership as a whole has always formally had the right of
review, and the general public has always had some input, though
it hasn't always been clear how much.

I cringe when I look over the HTML 4.0 history and I see that editors
and chairs and such (myself included) told reviewers "sorry, the WG
has already decided that question; we're not interested in your input."

> where you know quite well there will never be a
> consensus.

I do not know that at all.

> There never can be a consensus in such a wide forum with
> no process or rules for creating consensus.

The process is simple:

> > > > the WG's obligation to me is to
> > > >       -- convince me to withdraw
> > > >       -- accept my suggestion, or
> > > >       -- escalate the issue

In this case, I've separated my request in two, and withdrawn
my request to delete the FPI, and I'm awaiting confirmation
that you've agreed to accept my suggestion to remove the
bit about modifying system identifiers as appropriate.

> 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.

The W3C scope is different from the IETF, but the W3C process is
not so different. The W3C process is less constraining: it allows
WGs to operate with some of their proceedings member-confidential.
But other than that, there's not a lot of difference.

The introduction of Last Call into the W3C process formalized/clarified
the
notion that "External feedback is also encouraged."
	--
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#last-call

You'll see that the next step also says:

"6.2.3 Candidate Recommendations (CR)

Requirements for Entrance 
     The Director must be satisfied that the Working Draft has
successfully
	completed the Last Call with all comments resolved [...] "
	-- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR

All comments. Not just comments from WG members.


> I'm beginning to see your strategy: move discussions into as wide a
> forum as possible, then let them die in endless discussion.

It's just plain rude to question my motives without evidence. Please
stop.

> I don't
> see every other W3C spec undergoing such a long and painful death,

If you see public comments regarding other specs going unanswered,
I hope you'll notify the relevant staff contact. Notify me if you're
not sure whom to contact.

I know that the XML Schema WG is gearing up to exit the design
phase and start the phase of defending its decisions in public.
I think the DOM WG does a lot of this. I would agree that
there are some W3C specifications that have cut some corners
in this respect, but I don't condone that.

> and I see little reason to follow you through this idiocy, which is
> unjustified by W3C process,

I believe it is, and I've presented evidence to support my position.

> regardless of your attempts to convince
> us otherwise. The W3C does *not* seek public consensus on its
> specifications, for better or worse.

Yes, it does. W3C often settles for less than public consensus,
but it does seek public consensus:

"Integral to the W3C process is the notion of consensus. The W3C process
requires those who are considering an issue to address all participants'
views and objections and strive to resolve them."
	--
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/background.html#Consensus

> If it did, nothing would ever
> reach Recommendation.

Evidence is to the contrary:
http://www.w3.org/TR/#Recommendations

> Is that the reason why we're discussing removal
> of public identifiers?

As far as the WG obligation goes,
I've withdrawn that request as of Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:49:11 -0600.

I went on to re-state my preference and clarify my argument in
hopes that folks in this forum are still interested to discuss
it a bit.

> 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),

On the contrary... we've nearly reached consensus. All you have
to do is confirm that you've accepted my request that the
system identifier in all XHTML documents refer to the same
place in URI space.

> then
> obviously you have a very special status as reviewer.

That's not obvious at all. In fact, I believe I've made it
quite clear that everybody else in the community has
the same rights as I do w.r.t. last call on XHTML Basic.

-- 
Dan Connolly
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 17:11:56 GMT

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