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

Hi Daniel

I agree with much of what you say here. Yes, the W3C has taken a lot of the steps that were necessary when WhatWG was forming — more open, more agile, more pragmatic, and so on — but that was then. Persuading people that the work to set up an alternative is not needed is much easier than persuading them to tear down a functioning alternative that they have already created.

I think we need to do what Florian asks: just be clear about why we are doing what we’re proposing, and why it makes sense. I agree with you for HTML; it’s a flagship spec. that the W3C cannot walk away from. (I have to say I find it quite funny that W3C and WhatWG each remove material from the other’s work that they say is too speculative or not well enough supported.)

> On May 22, 2017, at 14:10 , Daniel Glazman <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> Cf. my bullet point in my "message to all AB candidates".
> 
> mchampion said "what value does W3C think it adds to the upstream WHATWG specs?". Maybe we could also consider the value implementors - our users - think W3C adds to the upstream specs, ahem? About "mutual trust-building", there is no mutual trust. Let's be clear and let's avoid political correctness please : W3C considers WHATWG folks as painful revolutionaries, and WHATWG folks consider W3C as a retirement house. And no, I am not even exaggerating.
> 
> To be very clear, there is one single reason we have duplicates of that kind, and I said it myself during an AC meeting roughly 13 years ago so it's minuted somewhere: « the W3C cannot afford letting the flagship spec leave the consortium; in terms of image, it would be disaster ». It is a disaster.
> 
> As a reminder, after the Tokyo AC meeting (2006?) when the renewed work on HTML was discussed, W3C could have invented a new-style WG, between WHATWG and what legacy W3C stakeholders expected. It never happened that way, up to the point the new W3C HTML WG became a paragon for "overprocess" and "lack of pragmatism". Almost everybody stopped participating. The new HTML WG never attracted WHATWG people, it made them flee. It never attracted browser vendors, it made them flee. It never attracted me, it made me flee. It almost never attracted anyone, period.
> 
> Eleven years later, W3C's still trying. Trying what, I don't really know, but it's still at it. Turn it every way you want, it's not any more a problem of « W3C is not agile enough » in the present. It really is « W3C did not listen » in the past. Done. Too late. Move on, please. 5.0 triggered some press because of the number and the logo, not the contents. Nobody cares about the contents. It kills me to say it but nobody cares, absolutely nobody, and I don't even care myself. Most importantly, our users - implementors - don't care. Nothing left to see here.
> 
> In that light, the html work, the DOM work and more recent others duplicated from WHATWG at W3C are wasted money, wasted time, wasted energy and confusion for everyone. Furthermore, they not only make the W3C ridiculous, they make it desperate.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.



-- 
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-303234506