Re: w3process-ISSUE-124 (WHATWG-blacklist): Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list WHATWG specs [Normative Reference Policy]

On 10/2/14 5:14 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> On 2014-09 -08, at 13:18, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> w3process-ISSUE-124 (WHATWG-blacklist): Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list WHATWG specs [Normative Reference Policy]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/124
>>
>> Raised by: Arthur Barstow
>> On product: Normative Reference Policy
>>
>> If a group has consensus that an "external reference" (such as a WHATWG spec) meets the group's requirements, then with respect to publishing a Technical, such a reference should be permitted. However, based on my conversations with Consortium staff last week, the Director will NOT permit a Proposed Recommendation to include a normative reference to a WHATWG spec.
>>
>> Although I disagree with the Director's position here (because I think the processes should defer to the opinion of the group and implementors), the Issue is the Normative Reference Policy [NRP] should explicitly identify those external groups the Director has explicitly blacklisted. As such, and to help avoid confusion, set expectations, etc., NRP should be updated to explicitly blacklist WHATWG.
>>
> Art
>
> By misrepresenting me here,  that the WhatWG group had been explicitly blacklisted by me, you did me and the whole group a massive disservice.  You owe me personally and I think the group an apology.  You wasted a lot of everyone's time in putting fuel for the the resulting flame wars.

As I said in followups to this thread, my take away from the meeting 
meeting that led to this issue is that one could interpret the NRP as 
not permitting normative WHATWG references in PRs (which again, I think 
would be a mistake). I do agree that rather having said "the Director 
will NOT" it would have been more accurate to say "it appears the 
Director will NOT" so I apologize for that bug. Again, it is unfortunate 
the meeting wasn't held in a transparent way and that "minutes" from the 
meeting aren't sufficient to back either position. We do indeed need to 
do better.

I disagree with the characterization the discussion being a waste of 
time. I think it was actually quite useful.

-Regards, AB

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 21:29:57 UTC