Re: [w3c/charter-html] Charter must state a reason when duplicating work done elsewhere (#139)

On 5/16/2017 5:52 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
>     We have a pretty good understanding with IETF about where their scope
>     ends and where our scope begins.
>
> Indeed IETF and W3C typically don't step on each others toes, there 
> isn't really a problem to be solved there.
>
> The problem is with WHATWG documents. I do not think we should be 
> stepping on each others toes just because we're used to do so, and 
> merely stating that we'll make an effort to avoid hurting each other 
> along the way is a too weak. If either party simply stopped working on 
> specs the other is working on, there would be no divergence and 
> duplication of effort.
>

Thanks for your continued effort to find some logical way to partner 
with the WHATWG.

I've put a great deal of energy into that myself and failed.  I tried to 
make it an AB priority for 2017 and was voted down by the AB.  So I 
certainly am looking for fresh ideas.

I don't think this particular idea works.  The WHATWG in the past has 
started to work on specs that originated in W3C and W3C is still working 
on.  So the result of your policy could be that the WHATWG could start 
working on everything W3C is working on, and we would be bound by this 
policy to stop everything.  This would not be a very good service for us 
to provide to our stakeholders, nor would it ensure (what I described in 
my previous post) that we deliver a standard Web Platform which is RF 
and follows OpenStand.

> From a WebPlatform WG point of view, why the WHATWG will not stop 
> working on such specs is immaterial. They've made it clear that they 
> would not. If that were to change, we'd take that into account, but 
> for now, it's not changing.
>
> So we can decide to unilaterally stop the duplication. If we chose not 
> to, and decide to bear the cost, and take the compatibility and 
> confusion risk of having diverging specs, we need a reason.
>
> And as I said above, the various reasons I've heard seem to demand 
> conflicting courses of action, as I discuss in my previous comment. So 
> we not only need to have "at least one reason", we need to be explicit 
> about what we're after, so as to make sure that the actions taken are 
> not in conflict with that.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> <https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/139#issuecomment-301732797>, 
> or mute the thread 
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFN22nJm8H67s1GrufnuYBorB5v9tFGhks5r6XHlgaJpZM4Nb6X5>.
>



-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/139#issuecomment-301796412