Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> Chris, the work from the WHATWG does enjoy rough consensus and I
> personally actively seek that out.


Indeed, I think much of the work from the WHATWG does enjoy rough
consensus, and I think both you and Ian seek it out.  However, it is not
part of the work mode of the WHATWG, and Ian has actively said he does not
believe in consensus as a decision-making mechanism - which leads one to
question the governance model of the WHATWG.


> Please tell me where there are technical controversies [in DOM, Encoding,
> Fullscreen and URL, specifically] between us.


Of course, I would do so.


> And we started working on IP:
> http://blog.whatwg.org/make-patent-commitments


 I believe I have said this repeatedly, so I'll not harp on this too much
here.  The WHATWG's  is an honor system.  I'm not worried about people who
WANT to do the right thing having a venue to make that commitment; I think
it is far better to get as many patent portfolio holders as possible into a
group that has to either contribute their IP, or list their explicitly
excluded IP.  I also think it's a good idea to manage that from the
beginning. (and yes, the policy of C&P is not a good one here.  It would be
far, far better for the WHATWG to take it seriously from the beginning.)
 For example, on the recent call I see no commitments from Apple, IBM or
Microsoft.  (This is not to cast shadows on those organizations; merely to
point out their commitments would have value.)

Neither of those is
> however why we do our work in a W3C CG.


You don't "do your work in a W3C CG" - a CG is one of the venues in which
work is done.  But since my understanding was that IP commitments was the
main reason for the CG, and the CG's description merely reads "Community
group around the HTML living specification and its related Web Application
technology specifications", and Ian's intro said "This is the W3C community
group for the WHATWG, a mechanism through which the WHATWG can publish
specifications with patent agreements," if IP is not the reason the WHATWG
has a CG, perhaps you can tell me why.


> You're not going to solve this
> with broad sweeping statements if you don't even know what is going
> on.
>

Don't insult me.  Just because you want to ignore my experience and
belittle my opinion does not mean I am ignorant.