- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:59:00 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak, Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:53:10 -0800: > > On Jan 11, 2010, at 3:09 AM, Lars Gunther wrote: > >> 2010-01-11 10:28, Lachlan Hunt skrev: >>> The WHATWG has operated for years without having to adopt a formal >>> change procedure like we have here because the group is not as >>> dysfunctional this one. >> >> Or you could say that it had a very narrow subset of all >> HTML-stakeholders in it - and those who did not belong in that >> subset soon learned that their ideas were shut down. >> >> The HTML WG is perhaps "dysfunctional" by the criteria that it is >> very much caught up in procedure and complaining, but that is >> looking at the symptoms, not the cause. The WHAT WG culture is >> definately not without is flaws and is one (of many) contributing >> factors. > > Lachy, Lars and others: > > I think debating whose process is dysfunctional and why, is likely to > be unproductive. Yes, it's true that the HTML WG has had some > difficulties. The Chairs and more importantly the participants are > now working hard to turn things around and make this a productive and > comfortable workspace. Let's try to focus on improving how we work > together and not on recriminations, please. I think getting into the > blame game produces more drama than enlightenment. As for improving how we work: (1) I suggest that we reject all proposals about /splitting/ of HTML 5 until the Microdata people has found out how they want to carry out the work with the /removed/ Microdata. Microdata is not HTML 5 anymore, but instead has become a side project to HTML 5 - just like RDFa+HTML. The issue of splitting the very HTML 5 document in several HTML 5 documents should not be linked to the removal of MD in any way whatsoever. (2) I in particular noted that you in a recent message said that Ian could have discussed more on the list before resolving the <details> bug. Right. I guess a comment where he in advance told how he intended to solve the issue, would have been helpful and created the necessary debate in advance. Microdata was added to the spec much the same way that <details> was deleted (and re-added - or how its status currently is): Thus, the whole MD business and change proposal could have been avoided if Ian said, in advance, what he intended to do. (And, it is of course then, when MD was initiated, that it would have been important to operate with _one_ mailing list - this one, instead of carrying out the entire debate inside the WHATwg list.) Like you said to Shelley: > We have to keep in mind that the Change Proposal process exists for > one reason: to resolve disagreements. It is a very heavyweight > process that requires a lot of work from participants and the chair, > and takes a long time to resolve. Hence, to avoid going through more heavyweight draining Change Proposals, it seems very important to not, again, quietly accept things to happen in - or with - the spec that we know that the group will not be able to live with. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 16:59:36 UTC