Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

Something worth keeping in mind when thinking about low-traffic lists
is the context-switch cost for casual contributors. Even
very-low-traffic lists carry a very large historical and conceptual
overhead that must be loaded into one's brain when responding.

-- Yehuda


On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>
> [much appreciated information snipped -- thanks!]
>
>> I really don't see how the review process and accountability could be much
>> more open for the development of Web IDL elsewhere, nor is the burden on
>> reviewers that large... it would simply be one more low-traffic mailing
>> list.  Are there other barriers you see?
>
> I alluded to employers who are not currently paying W3C members not wanting
> their employees participating, even individually. I'll let one notable
> example that I know of speak for himself.
>
> The "mailing list as firehose" problem can be solved with enough work, but
> with two standards groups there is always greater risk of conflict, and just
> competition for attention. Two lists is simply one more list than one list
> to keep up with.
>
> This is a price of collaboration at wider scale, so don't let me stand in
> the way, since I've been explicit about being in favor of collaboration.
>
> W3C and Ecma both have transparency issues, but I don't expect those to be
> fixed easily. I mentioned them ("People in dark-glass houses ... [should not
> throw stones]") in reply to Maciej asserting greater openness on one side.
> Again this is not a "barrier" I'm trying to take down right now.
>
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>



-- 
Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325

Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 03:01:15 UTC