W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2014

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

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400
Message-ID: <542DC585.7050202@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>

On 10/2/2014 5:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 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 
>> 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

For the record, I made clear in [1] that ISSUE-124 mis-states the 
Director's position.  But I agree that once the issue was raised in this 
way, it assumed a life of its own.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0042.html
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 21:37:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:21 UTC