W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > March 2015

Re: process request -- was: Using a Smart Client

From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:44:35 +0100
Cc: Social Web Working Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Message-Id: <45210AE1-0378-4077-AE24-22C626461B8A@bblfish.net>
To: Elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>

> On 7 Mar 2015, at 22:13, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> 
> On 03/07/2015 06:32 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>> 
>>> On 7 Mar 2015, at 18:17, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 03/07/2015 06:05 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Tanket wrote:
>>>> " too much plumbing for v1."
>>>> What is too much plumbing?
>>> Henry, both Tantek and Aaron choose not to participate in this mailing
>>> list, I recommend you discussing it with them over IRC
>>> 
>>> you can lave messages there using !tell e.g.
>>> !tell tantek let's talk about Using a Smart Client
>> 
>> ?!?
>> 
>> Sorry but participation in W3C WG requires all members to use the same
>> mailing list. We can't just work over 20 different channels. What is 
>> written elsewhere, is not archived by the W3C and so has no weight in
>> the process.
> You could also meet on IRC and even use one time call bridge
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig#Instructions_for_creating_a_one-time_call_bridge
> 
> AFAIK you can invite RRSAgent any time to #social IRC channel and it
> will log the conversation
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
> 
> Henry, I can understand your frustration but also please understand that
> Tantek, Aaron and other IndieWeb folks find mailing lists unproductive
> and draining energy. IMO we don't have 20 but just 4 official channels:
> mailing-list, wiki, IRC, tracker + telecons

You forget that there were conversations going on in github for a while,
that the github bug database was used too, that the logs for the teleconf
were hosted by yet another web site, that the group was split into different
Interest Groups, one of which was meant to come up with the user stories for
this group, none of the input of which as far as I can see was then used here. 
So there seems to be a strategy of "split the conversations in a number of
subgroups" and be sure that nobody here discusses anything for real. 

> which gives us enough
> flexibility to not force others to do something they really don't want
> to do. And I know that you use IRC anyways :)

It is not flexibility that we need, rather we need to be able to discuss things
together so that we can come to rational consensus. In no other working group 
have I seen this basic fact been challenged. Decisions as to what go in the 
spec have  to be justified by channels that everyone is aware of here, can 
refer to and  that is archived by the W3C for future reference.

I find IRC very unproductive for the kind of in depth conversation we need
to have here. I'd have to go on IRC at the same time as those people who I 
am wanting to talk to are online. How do I know when they are going to be 
available? I have been very busy the last few days, and I don't expect others
to constantly be online to read wait for someone to come online to chat. 
And others may want to add something to the conversation may not
know that the conversation is going on there. I don't think anyone checks the
daily logs on the IRC channel, and I have never heard anyone suggest we should
do that.

> 
> BTW on #indiewebcamp IRC i see Postel's law mentioned pretty often
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
> "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept"

That is about communication protocols, not W3C consensus building.

In any case it is particularly ironical that those who criticise a story 
for having too much plumbing, are requesting an ever growing number of
communication protocols to discuss things on.

> 
> Cheers!
> 
>> 
>> I'd like clarification on process from the W3C 
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Saturday, 7 March 2015 21:45:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 15:48:20 UTC