Re: splits, discussions, and manic behavior

On Jan 9, 2010, at 7:35 AM, Benoit Piette wrote:

> That the chairs seem to be welcoming or not opposing such splits /  
> reorganizations is mind-boggling.

As one of the chairs, I have my own opinions, but I'd mainly like to  
see what the Working Group thinks of the splits, before we publish  
more Working Drafts. So far most of the discussion has been about the  
mechanics and process of the splits. Relatively little has been about  
which splits are good or bad on the merits, or whether the spec should  
be factored differently. (Jonas and Philip did comment thoughtfully on  
the merits, which is much appreciated.)

I don't think thrashing the copy of the spec is very  
productive. But at least it's less disruptive than thrashing the TR/  
page. I'm not sure all the splits were done with sincerity of intent  
(rather, some of them seem to have done just to prove a point). But  
nonetheless, it does seem illuminating to see some examples of  
different ways the spec could be broken up. I'd really like to see  
this turned into concrete input on how we can do it differently. In  
other words, have the discussion now that we neglected to have before.


Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 17:15:24 UTC