- From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:24:26 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I share Roy's concern here... Alan On 1/26/12 5:36 AM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: >While I appreciate the example for formatting a chair decision, I hope >we don't take any lessons from the HTML WG decision-making process. >A real WG makes decisions based on the discussion on the mailing list, >minuted meetings, how *all* of the implementations of that technology >implement it now, and the definitive statements made by WG members >regarding how they intend to implement. That is what the chairs >should consider when there is a need to decide consensus. > >Introducing arbitrary deadlines and limited-time polls in which uninformed >opinions and ditto crowds are considered equal to the aforementioned >discussion and implementation experience is ridiculous. Having the chairs >regularly meet in private to make arbitrary decisions on the basis of >those >polls, while completely disregarding the entire history of the discussion >and the known implementation facts/plans, is absurd. And one result of >that absurdity is the worst specification ever developed in any standards >forum. It is ignored by implementors -- one half claim to be implementing >the WHATWG version instead and the other half have no choice but to ignore >the irrelevant browser specs because they aren't writing a browser. >Regardless, neither spec accurately reflects what WebKit implements >as HTML, so WebKit has become the de facto standard. The chairs' >perception of making progress is nothing more than a pyrrhic victory. > >....Roy > >On Jan 26, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Karl Dubost wrote: > >> Following the discussion we had this morning about the process on >>closing some issues, here is an example of a chair decision over an >>issue in the HTML WG. [1] >> >> It outlines >> >> *** Question before the Working Group *** >> == Uncontested observations: >> *** Decision of the Working Group *** >> == Next Steps == >> == Appealing this Decision == >> == Revisiting this Issue == >> == Arguments not considered >> >> [1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0372 >> >> -- >> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ >> Developer Relations, Opera Software >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 12:25:58 UTC