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

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

From: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:12:53 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "Revising W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <540E99C53248CE468F6F7702588ABA2AC734A320@A1GTOEMBXV003.gto.a3c.atos.net>
Art, comment in line [VG]
Virginie

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com]
Sent: lundi 8 septembre 2014 15:03
To: GALINDO Virginie; Revising W3C Process Community Group
Subject: Re: w3process-ISSUE-124 (WHATWG-blacklist): Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list WHATWG specs [Normative Reference Policy]

On 9/8/14 8:47 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
> Do you have some pointers to share with us, reflecting what you are mentioning ?

AsFarAsIConcerned, all of the discussion should be made Public. I've made a request to do so.
[VG] can you tell us more about the context of that discussion. Was it during a decision making, or informal conversation?

> I am not sure it would be appropriate to blacklist any organism for being referenced.

But having clarity (even if some of us don't like the data) is better than having a policy that appears to be open ended but in practice is not.
[VG] sure

> I believe that this analysis of stability and public qualities should be made each time we want to reference a given specification.

Yes, I certainly agree and a sticking point is who actually gets to make the decision. It seems to me the priorities should be the group and implementers (i.e. the actors that actually expend  resources and take the real risk) > Director.

[VG] agree


> Note :  provided the hard discussions currently happening between W3C and WhatWG on this mailing list, this is exactly the kind of issue that will not help to calm things #justsaying.

Sorry, but I don't follow you. Are you suggesting it's somehow "{best,better}" to say nothing?

[VG] No, raising issue is good, silence is not encouraged here, I say that without public evidence of what you mention, it is not easy to discuss this topic in a serene style (by the way, look here https://twitter.com/domenic/status/508964136366391297)

-Thanks, AB

________________________________
 This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 13:14:13 UTC

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