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

> On 02 Oct 2014, at 23:29, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.

I think that instead of saying one or the other by yourself, you should have double/triple/quadruple-checked with him directly if this is what he said or meant, as you couldn’t possibly ignore that raising the issue the way you did it would trigger a flame war. 

> 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.

The meeting being private or public wouldn’t have changed anything. I can’t see where the publicity of the meeting or the quality of the minutes bring any backing to this behaviour. 

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

If the goal is to make sure the distance between the two organisations keeps growing, then it’s indeed a success. 

Regards
JC

> -Regards, AB