Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)

Sam,

> On 20 Dec 2014, at 7:14 am, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
> On 12/19/2014 02:45 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Sam,
>> 
>>> On 19 Dec 2014, at 11:08 pm, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> What frustrates me is that we met, in person, face to face.  You
>>> proposed some specific actions whereby the IETF (where you are a
>>> member) and the TAG (where you are a member) would either endorse
>>> or propose changes to what I proposed.  I took notes and published
>>> them promptly:
>>> 
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Nov/0000.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I've seen no follow through on what you personally proposed.
>> 
>> I understand that you’re frustrated, but it’s not productive to focus
>> that frustration on me. You say “your proposals,” yet there were
>> others from the TAG and IETF there, and I don’t recall being the sole
>> genesis of this plan — it was a collaborative discussion over lunch.
>> Your notes certainly don’t reflect the interpretation you take
>> above.
> 
> I was sitting right next to you when you suggested that I could expect "statements from both the IETF and the W3C TAG along these lines mid November-ish, most likely just after IETF meeting 91."  As you were the one who suggested it, and are a member of the IETF Applications Area Directorate and a member of the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG), as well as the IETF Liaison to the W3C, and I am looking to you to follow through with this.

I’m really sorry, Sam, but I don’t remember it that way.

Regardless, you have the attention of both the Apps Area (note: the directorate is a separate body, and not really applicable in this discussion; it only reviews specs late in the process), the TAG (as evidenced by Dan’s e-mail) and the Liaison (at least on the IETF side) now. 


> (aside: nice looking resume at <https://www.mnot.net/personal/resume.html>)

Um… wow. 


>> I know you’ve been working hard on this, and that some people have
>> been unresponsive — i’ve been prodding them too (as you’ve seen in
>> CC’d e-mails). I choose to interpret their unresponsiveness as a sign
>> that a) they’re busy, and/or b) that they believe that they can’t
>> materially add to the discussion. If I think they need to participate
>> more actively, I politely prod them again.
>> 
>>> I want to know what it takes to get an endorsement from Mark
>>> Nottingham.  Not a thanks that I've picked up this work, an actual
>>> endorsement of URL Living Standard and/or the URL W3C Working
>>> draft, as well as the stated direction.
>> 
>> “I strongly support these goals.”  -
>> <http://www.w3.org/mid/D504FED5-8F28-4F4C-89B8-949AE9B5C6B5@mnot.net>.
>> 
>> How else can I help? You have endorsements from two TAG members
>> (Domenic and I) already; we can try to get some more, or get a blog
>> entry published (cc:ing Dan). A Finding seems like a heavyweight
>> mechanism for this...
> 
> What you have done: publicly supported me working in this general area, making others aware of this work, publicly thanking me for "grasping the nettle" (something I had to look up :-)) and labeling the work as an "aphorism" (OUCH!)

An aphorism is a pithy saying — I used that term because that’s what Larry had used to characterise how we build consensus (*not* this effort). *confused*


> Now let me contrast what Paul Hoffman has done:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13504.html
> 
> In but a few words, he has actually made a recommendation.  That's what I'm looking for from the IETF and from the TAG. And whether you like it or not, that involves you.

I have made many recommendations, Sam — you’ve just chosen to ignore them. That’s your prerogative, of course. 


>>> In addition, let me now up the ante.
>>> 
>>> You mentioned a W3C recommendation.  I have personally updated the
>>> document which is on the W3C Rec track:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/url/
>>> 
>>> I have kept a working draft up to date:
>>> 
>>> http://rawgit.com/w3ctag/url/develop/url.html
>>> 
>>> Please tell me what it will take for me to formally propose that a
>>> RFC3986bis be created.  If necessary, I'll volunteer to be the
>>> author.
>> 
>> I’m not sure why you’re insisting on “formally” — the most
>> *effective* way would be to write down a delta from 3986 somewhere
>> (Internet-Draft, Wiki, whatever), circulate that for comment, and
>> then (presuming the result is encouraging) ask the Area Directors to
>> hold a WG-forming BoF at the next opportunity. At that stage, you’d
>> want to start working on a proposed charter.
>> 
>> If you want to make it formal, submit it as an Internet-Draft, and
>> then make a request for the BoF to the ADs.
>> 
>> Note that that’s the most likely path forward — there could be others
>> (see previous discussion on IETF consensus).
> 
> You know it is not that simple.
> 
> You've seen the input from a number of people.  People who haven't looked at the data that I have prepared, but are too willing to make the categorical assertion that RFC 3986 is not to be touched.
> 
> On this very mailing list, I got the request from two different individuals that a good first step would be to write a Problem Statement.  One offered to work with me, and I took him up on that offer.

OK… I’m really not sure what you want from me. You say you want my input, but when I give it — in good faith — you ignore it and take a different path, and then blame me for not helping.


>> If you write down the delta, I’m happy to help you understand the
>> next steps.
>> 
>> As I’ve said repeatedly before, I do not think that getting IETF
>> Consensus on the Problem Statement document helps you get there, and
>> that if anything, a liaison statement would be a better conduit. If
>> you want to initiate a Liaison Statement exchange, you’ll need to
>> work through Philippe and Wendy; if OTOH, you want to pursue IETF
>> Consensus, I think you need a response from the ADs as to what your
>> next steps should be. Again, I’m not convinced that either is
>> necessary; as previously communicated, I explained what you’re doing
>> to the APPSAWG in IETF91, and there wasn’t any pushback from those
>> present.
> 
> I hope you can see my frustration.
> 
> First, you suggest a liaison statement in October.  It doesn't happen in November.  I follow up with suggestions made here to create a Problem Statement, and now you say that's not going to help me get there.  Now you suggest a liaison statement again.

Again, I did not suggest the problem statement. This is an open list — just because a suggestion is made here doesn’t mean that it’s considered a good idea by the liaison; in this case, I actively cautioned against it. Please don’t blame me for doing so; it may turn out that my advice is bad — something that I’m happy to admit — but absent objections from IETF leadership CCed, it’s probably not.

Regarding the Liaison Statement — it needs to be initiated by the W3C Liaisons — i.e., they need to send us a statement saying “this is what we’re planning, any comments?” and the IETF replies with a similar statement. 

I’ve pinged them about this in the past, but one has not been forthcoming. I won’t presume to say why that hasn’t happened — it could be that the Team has decided that it’s not necessary, that the time isn’t right, or they’re just too busy to do it. Regardless, you need to follow up with them, not me.

Sam, please realise that I’m trying to help; if I’ve unintentionally given offence, misunderstood something or failed to follow up, I unreservedly apologise. That said, I have to say that I *do* find your tone and aggressive manner here offensive, and this makes it difficult to work with you. Given that you’ve put your name forward for the TAG election, that’s a concern.

Regards,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 20:57:10 UTC