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

Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 03:11:03 -0500 (EST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10001260259260.15214-100000@mail.q2.net>


On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Arjun Ray wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > Arjun Ray wrote:

> > Well, was the idea bruited for the HTML-WG?
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand. "bruited"?

I haven't read the fine print of the Activity Page to determine
whether there's a interest group at all, but if there isn't, was this
the result of an explicit decision not to have one?  If there is one,
was it also an explicit decision not to publish its archive?

> Second, you equate efficiency of people working together with
> political expedience? I don't.

I say that political considerations have no place in what is intended
to be fundamental technology.

> I'm talking about collaboration between two groups where every
> time you cross the boundary you have to think "er... which parts
> of this are confidential and which aren't?" and you can't share
> pointers to documents, and so on. It's just
> access-control-administrivia-hell.

I don't get it.  The w3c-sgml-wg had a public archive.  I'm not aware
of anyone being constrained by that fact, even though a couple of
times we may have given pointers that didn't work.  When outsiders
like me were on the w3c-xml-sig list, we were given password access to
the Member Area.  What I never understood was why the sig list had
therefore to be private too.
 
> >  I can understand it when vendor interests - such as the
> > value-added features they might want to protect from premature
> > exposure - are involved for specific things.  But not for XML.
> > 
> > Please tell me I've read this wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure... I don't think I understand what you wrote.

If it's fundamental technology, it can't be confidential.  If anyone
were bothered by a confidentiality issue, they should think twice
before raising the issue on such a list.  Why?  Because the
confidential part can't be fundamental.

This is an inherent component of public *trust*.  No "Back Room Boys
For The Greater Good Of The Public", please. 


Arjun
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2000 03:02:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:41 GMT