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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:56:20 -0600
Message-ID: <388F4354.81FA928@w3.org>
To: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
CC: www-html@w3.org
Arjun Ray wrote:
> 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?

Other than this forum, there isn't one. (and this forum doesn't really
have a chair, so it can't be counted as an interest group. That might
be the easiest thing to change. Anybody who is interested in
to chair this forum is invited to contact me.)

An interest group in the HTML Activity was an option
when the WG was chartered (late '98, I think) but I don't think
it was explicitly discussed.

> > 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.

To me, "policitcal considerations" means "considerations that arise
when more than one person engages in a decision". Hence they
are an essential component of collaborative consensus development.

If you mean something else by "political considerations" then I
need more explanation.

> > 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.

Er... pointers that don't work seems like a constraint. But beyond
that... of course you weren't aware that folks were constrained;
in the cases where they were constrained, you didn't hear about it.
I did. In confidence, of course.

>  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.

To allow folks to, for example, forward stuff to the sig list in

> > >  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.

The technology isn't confidential. Working drafts were released
the decision record is public[r], and it was regularly discussed openly
at conferences and such.

[r] http://www.w3.org/XML/9712-reports.html

W3C also allowed a certain amount of discussion that isn't available
to the public, because some folks wanted that.

>  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.

Well, somebody could develop technology that way, and W3C does
develop some technologies that way, but XML wasn't developed
that way.

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

Dan Connolly
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2000 13:57:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC