- From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 23:19:52 -0400
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, public-html@w3.org
Hi Sam, replying at your invitation for comments http://twitter.com/samruby/statuses/1762898805 Le 9 mai 2009 à 00:51, Sam Ruby a écrit : > For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process. > As far as I'm concerned, no attempt has been made to assess > consensus on any part of the current draft, at least not to my > satisfaction. agreed. > That does not mean that such assessment of consensus can't be > obtained rather quickly in many areas, in fact, I'd suggest that it > can. The shape of content. Writing is a strong statement. It shows the way and defines borders. I would agree with the CTR process, if the document would offer the alternatives between different versions, explorations. A way to reach consensus then would be to test what has been deployed. That would allow us to avoid the logical fallacies. > I joined this working group as co-chair with a number of personal > goals. Mike as a staff contact and you as a chair have been part of the best things that could happen to this WG. > subgoals were to significantly reduce the hostile working > environment that existed in public-html at the time and to provide > anybody and everybody who wished to an opportunity to pursue > alternative proposals. I take blame for that. I'm on the verge of thinking that I should have not pushed so hard for reopening the HTML WG at W3C. It was either too late or maybe too early. I don't know, but the communities were obviously not ready at the time. > Shelley once referred to this as "put up or shut up", and I will > admit that there is an element of truth to this. Not easy. When someone has editing nuclear fire (time, support from a big company, a "gentlemen" club, etc.) it becomes very hard to come with a plastic knife. It looks more like "burn or shut up". Great power should be handled with care. I do not think it is the case for now. > My third and final personal goal was to assess consensus. As to the > order in which we assess consensus, I have every intention of being > opportunistic -- taking the low hanging fruit when it is offered, > and taking on topics when the topic of conversation is naturally > occurring anyway. Even before the WhatWG started, I had in mind that we should do an html 4.2 or 4.5, where we would be fixing simple mistakes which had been made about the html 4 specification. I was not in the right position to do that at the time. Mistake. It became a bit more complex. From the current html 5, I would remove all the pop-culturish markup (inherited from blog age). Separate the DOM, remove all the APIs and put them in separate documents. I had trust in the past into Ian Hickson's editor abilities. This has long gone. Ashes. I do not support autocracy. I believe in people. -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://twitter.com/karlpro
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 03:20:44 UTC