- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400
- 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 >>> 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 > > 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