- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:46:22 -0700
- To: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Sep 8, 2014, at 5:18 , 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] I am opposed to any this. I strongly believe that we should expect top exercise good judgment, and that automatic decisions, such as this one, are a bad idea. I am following the thread of emails, and would like to know what problem this is intended to solve. We can’t trust the AC and the Director to use good judgment over normative references? > > 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. > > > > David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 16:46:51 UTC