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

On 5/16/2017 5:08 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>
> I tend to find Florian's reasoning fairly compelling here, W3C could 
> be doing a better job reducing confusion over duplicated work. In 
> particular:
>
> @frivoal <https://github.com/frivoal> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
> And we also need to measure that supposed benefit of that one reason & 
> what we're after, and whether that is worth the costs of doing so 
> (e.g. costs of W3C resources, time, etc., costs of 
> introducing/continuing/fueling confusion among web developers etc.).
>
> I'm pretty convinced at this point that the answer is no, in general 
> it is not worth it to have WPWG duplicate work being done in W3C.
>

Did you mean "done in WHATWG".  What would you say about work recently 
started in W3C and forked to the WHATWG?  Your formula seems to be a 
formula to ultimately stop everything in W3C.

> The only potential exception I'm unsure about is HTML, for the reasons 
> that @stevefaulkner <https://github.com/stevefaulkner> provides, and 
> frankly because so much divergence has occurred there (some good, some 
> bad, like old contentious debates being relitigated), it's not clear 
> how to even attempt a path towards reconvergence with HTML.
>

I have argued at the AB (with little success) that we should be trying.

When we agreed to work together with the WHATWG in (roughly) 2008, we 
were much further apart.  We hadn't even started working on HTML5 at 
that point!  Yet we managed to create a partnership that worked for 
several years.  It worked, basically, until W3C decided that the world 
wanted a standard HTML5 and the WHATWG felt that we were not ready to 
move it to REC level (due to LS).

IAC, I agree with you we should not relitigate the past.  But if we 
could partner with them in 2008, we can certainly do the same today.  
Our specs are much closer together than they were then. Our test 
frameworks are the same.  The W3C process is much more agile. If there 
is a will there is a way.

> @stevefaulkner <https://github.com/stevefaulkner> wrote:
>
>     The centre of gravity for accessibility related aspects of the web
>     platform, including implementation in browsers, continues to be at
>     the W3C. It is still also the place where stakeholders with a
>     commitment to accessibility, regardless of their affiliation with
>     browser vendors, get a seat at the table.
>
> I appreciate this and accept it is not to be underestimated.
>
> To me this signals that all versions of HTML could/would benefit from 
> a delta document from HTML that specifically adds/patches 
> accessibility related items, a "W3C HTML Accessibility" spec as it 
> were. The advantage of such a spec is that such accessibility 
> enhancements would get properly highlighted rather buried in the W3C's 
> copy of HTML 5.x which browser implementers in general don't bother 
> reading. If there was a separate "W3C HTML Accessibility" spec that 
> worked as a delta from WHATWG HTML, I'm guessing more browser 
> implementers might read that to see what the W3C accessibility 
> consensus has documented. This is just floating an idea to stir 
> thinking, not a concrete proposal, and no response is needed.
>
> I agree with @frivoal <https://github.com/frivoal>'s "Proposed 
> solution" in his opening description, and would add:
>
>   * Each spec that is duplicating work that is happening at WHATWG
>     explicitly note that in the charter and provide the /specific/
>     reason(s) explaining why and what the benefits are of W3C doing so
>     for /that spec/, and how those benefits outweigh the confusion
>     generated by duplicating a spec actively maintained elsewhere.
>
> If a charter cannot provide such reasons for working on a spec, 
> especially one where another body is already doing maintenance on it, 
> that spec should not be in the charter's scope.
>

I have provided the rationale elsewhere in this thread.

> —
> 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-301916215>, 
> or mute the thread 
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFN22u3R4NJEVJPGN4uYZeOQj6JtV-enks5r6hBrgaJpZM4Nb6X5>.
>



-- 
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-301994749