Re: Spec organizations and prioritization

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