W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Change Proposals and Counter-Proposals (was Re: Issues 89 through 97)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:17:40 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1001182017o18eb2241jca5e7e8e5c5a1242@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you all think the spec is good, you shouldn't be reluctant to
>>> provide a rationale for why its good.
>> Of course I should be reluctant.  It's time out of my day that I could
>> be spending more usefully if someone never writes a change proposal
>> and the issue times out.
> People who have to write change proposals also have other work to do.

That's the point.  It means that we only invoke the full weight of
process when someone is willing to actually spend a non-trivial amount
of time on an issue.  Allowing an issue raiser to spend a trivial
amount of effort and force the WG to expend a non-trivial amount is a
losing proposition that puts us in trouble.  Doing it the other way
around means that it's more likely issues raised are worthwhile.

It's sort of like innocent until proven guilty, or "the burden of
proof lies on the accuser".  These are also intended to make it so
that the instigator has to do as much or more work as the defendant.
That way the ROI on the instigation must be higher for it to be worth

>> Don't get me wrong; in an ideal world, where every change proposal was
>> sincere and worthwhile, then it would be nice to receive a full
>> justification of each part of the spec whenever someone didn't
>> understand the rationale behind something.  We do not live in an ideal
>> world, however, and people will sometimes abuse processes out of
>> stupidity or maliciousness.  Defending against these situations is
>> worthwhile.
> So what you're saying is that my issues are not sincere or worthwhile?

I said nothing of the sort.  Don't take things personally; our
decision process is shaped to defend us against time-wasting threats
in general.

> I would have to say, Tab, that you seem quick dismiss other people
> concerns when they don't agree with yours. But disagreement with you,
> is not a rationale.

I have not dismissed anyone's concerns off-hand.  I would appreciate
it if you didn't make disparaging remarks without at least providing
some evidence.  There is no call for you to attack me personally.

Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 04:18:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:57 UTC