- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:11:30 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > That is *a* point, not *the entire point*. > > There is a point to requiring rationale in the first place for every change made to the document, retroactively if necessary. > > There is also a point to requiring those that would like something different to actually document what they would like. > > I definitely subscribe to the latter (see [1]), but that doesn't mean that I don't think that the former is important too. In particular, saying that a DoS attack is a theoretical possibility is not an excuse for features to be present in HTML5 without literally *ANYBODY* in the group willing to provide the rationale for that feature. I agree that every part of the spec should have at the very least rationale-on-demand, where if it's not available and you ask, you get an answer. However, there's a difference between that and requiring it to be written with full formality with the expectation that it will be judged. If we require a full formal write-up just because someone raises an issue, even implicitly, then we make it easy to DoS the group simply by raising a large number of issues without the intent to follow through on all of them. I don't think anyone should get to demand work of the Working Group without expending equivalent effort first. Thus, the quality expectations for a bug reply are about the same as the quality expectations for a bug (I concede that not all bug replies have met that quality level, and we as Chairs should be giving guidance on what we think is sufficient). Likewise, the quality expectations for a counter-proposal are the same as the quality expectations for a Change Proposal. I don't think anyone should be entitled to a Change Proposal level of effort in reply just by raising an issue. I'm not sure if we really materially disagree here, but if so we could discuss offline and align our understandings. I think that we've done a good job on the issues making their way through the process so far in giving everyone a fair opportunity to make their case. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:12:05 UTC