W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Example of chairs decision as made in the HTML WG

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>
Message-ID: <CB46B016.127BC%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
I share Roy's concern here...


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
>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.
>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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:30 UTC