Re: New split-out drafts vs. modular design

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