On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote: > Again, the simple request is for the W3C to please stop copy/pasting the > WHATWG specs. > > Jeff, can we please get an acknowledgement that this will now stop? > I, for one, speaking as an individual would hope the answer to that continues to be "no." Marcos, you assert that forking is for when "the Editor goes rogue or there is a loss of confidence in the WHATWG", but then you go on to say "we are not at [the point where that has happened]". I thought Anne stated it quite well when he said "Forking should be the path taken only when no cooperation can be done with the party where the work originates or when the goals are fundamentally different." Unlike him, I think those caveats DO apply in this case - perhaps not NO cooperation, but it's clear the W3C and the WHATWG have divergent goals. The W3C membership still believes (in my experience - happy to suggest an AC poll) that having static TRs is a good idea (as opposed to the living standard model), modulo the process/publishing changes I mentioned earlier in this thread, and the W3C's participation model is founded on the idea that rough concensus is the right basis for standards. The W3C and the WHATWG have fundamental differences in working model.
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 22:32:37 UTC