- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:18:59 -0400
- To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Ian Hickson > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:08 PM > To: Justin James > Cc: 'HTML WG' > Subject: RE: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal (Was: ISSUE-41: Decentralized > extensibility) > > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Justin James wrote: > > > > Wasn't one of your major objections to the ARIA proposal the lack of > > transparency in their process? > > No, I said: > > > > 1. ARIA isn't being developed in the open. It is unlikely that we > would > > > adopt wholesale anything that wasn't developed in a completely > open > > > manner, with open public participation and a completely public > > > feedback loop. > > Open participation with an open feedback loop doesn't require that the > editors write down every fleeting thought they have about their spec. I agree. But it means that if a *decision* was made, that it be done *in public* and *with public input*. Therefore, any decisions made before the formation of a public group, were not "open". So if those decisions were going to be made outside of the public view, than you need to accept that the "open" and "public" debate is going to challenge those decisions from time-to-time, and if you are working for this spec to have been developed in an "open" and "public" manner, then you need to be willing to seriously consider challenges to decisions that were made prior to the formation of this group. It seems that at least once a week, someone gets fairly upset over something in the spec, and the response is typically along the lines of referring to one of these pre-public working group decisions. I think that this is a strong indicator of a serious problem. The common denominator here is the way in which these decisions were made. I really don't see people getting upset over decisions that were made since this group was formed. > > I think that the group would appreciate an explanation that helps us > to > > understand why the base assumptions of HTML 5 can be "considered > > carefully" but "not documented", but we won't work with another group > > that is transparent? > > The "base assumptions" of HTML5 are widely documented, e.g. in the > aforementioned whitepaper, in the "design principles" document, etc. > It's > just the pros and cons of proposals and their variants that often ends > up > underdocumented. Documenting the base assumptions is not the same thing as developing them in an "open" and "public" manner. I think that this is the fundamental problem that myself, and a great number of other people on this list are having here. Decisions were made behind closed doors, and now people challenge them and the response is, "but this was documented." It may have been documented, but it was not discussed by *this group*. It was discussed by you and a few other people, all of whom seem to work for a very small group of companies and organizations. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but if you take a look at things from the outsider's perspective, I think you would agree that there is certainly the *appearance* that a few major organizations are having their voices heard and that this group gets ignored when those ideas are challenged. Your views on "consensus" are now a matter of public record. But it all too often feels like this group is merely a "show trial"; when we rubber stamp the pre-made decisions, great, and when we don't, oh well. I truly hope that this is not the reality. If this is not what is actually happening, then we as a group need to see that our input is actually valued, even when it is contrary to the assumptions and decisions that were generated before the formation of this group. And the way we can see that our input is valued is for it to actually get into the draft, above and beyond us finding typos or minor inconsistencies. And if this working group really is just a "show trial", then I am sure that the group would like to know, so that we can stop bothering to read the dozens of emails that this group generates, and cease wasting our time trying to participate. I joined this group in the hopes of having the chance to reverse the course of HTML 5, which when I read the initial public draft, I was absolutely appalled by. Indeed, you invited me to this group in response to my public comments on that draft. But if the decisions and assumptions made before the creation of this group are considered immutable, then I really can't see what the purpose of this group is. J.Ja
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 05:20:04 UTC