- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:19:05 -0700
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:47:58 -0700, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: > Le mardi 20 mars 2012 à 06:30 -0700, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : >> 1. That's make work. > > It isn't, if you agree that an important part of our goal is the get RF > commitments; if you don't, then indeed. Straw man. Carefully watering down text to make sure that all implementations are compliant is an expensive exercise. Given the way http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr is defined and many specifications that are not fully interoperable (e.g. SVG) went to Recommendation there are definitely other approaches. Also, the WebApps WG asked for volunteers in a room of about 100 people when we decided to abandon XMLHttpRequest to see if anyone was interested in doing that watering down and making it happen. Nobody volunteered. I sometimes have the feeling W3C Team members are assigning blame to the person editing and I feel that is inappropriate. I should be able to (and do) invest my time how I see appropriate. If people feel that a branched version of XMLHttpRequest is needed, nothing is standing in their way to make it happen. We actively asked people to make it happen. But it did not happen. Resources are limited and the process as is (broken) requires lots of them. The math here is really straightforward, it is way easier to fix the process then to find tons of competent people helping us out. It seems better that we realize that than try to change priorities for the one or two years where the current broken process still matters. Then we can collectively focus on fixing it rather than getting sidetracked. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 15:19:43 UTC