W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Points of order on this WG

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:34:49 +0900
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jeff Mischkinsky <JEFF.MISCHKINSKY@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20090625023448.GB15877@sideshowbarker>
"Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, 2009-06-24 17:13 -0700:

>  I want to raise two formal points of order about the manner in which this WG 
>  has operated, particularly in respect to Web Storage.
>  1. Charter
>  2. Process
>  Firstly, no one seriously responds to proposals about things that are 
>  officially in the WG's charter.

That's not true.

If you believe that's been the case with a specific proposal, then
let's please talk about that specific proposal instead of turning
this into a process discussion.

>  If there is inadequate interest, then we should get rid of the
>  responsibility from this WG's charter.

If there's inadequate interest in *a particular proposal* from
other members of the group -- particularly among the vendors who
would be expected to implement it -- then that would be a pretty
good indicator that an investment of the already-constrained
resources of the group into trying harder to move that the
proposal forward might not be an investment that's likely to pay
off for us well as a group (in terms of actually being successful
at getting it implemented in UAs).

>  On the other hand, if Web Storage and related matters are in
>  this WG's charter based on this WG's agreement, there should be
>  feedback from its members,

As far as I can see, that's already happening.

>  and at least substantive discussions by its appointed editors.

First off, Ian is not an appointed editor for the Web Storage
draft. He's the editor of that particular draft by virtue of the
fact that he's the one wrote it. But the fact that he wrote it
and contributed it to the group does not magically bless it nor
necessarily give it any position of special entitlement in the
group. If you or any other member wants to contribute a related or
alternative draft and check it into the group's document
repository, you are very much encouraged to do so. We can then
continue with discussion about it -- with a status of Editor's
Draft in the group -- up to the point where we decide if/when we
decide as a group that we want to transition it to a First Public
Working Draft.

>  If the editor is uninterested,

There is no "the editor". There are *editors*, and Hixie is *an*
editor of *a* particular draft. Editors do not get appointed by
the chairs. As far as I can recall, we have never in this group
nor in either of its ancestor groups ever appointed someone to be
*the* editor. What has happened instead is that people have
stepped forward with drafts to contribute and expressed commitment
to editing those and managing discussion about them

That is the way things have always worked in this group.

>  then I expect the chair to argue whether something seems to
>  fall outside the charter's scope and provide reasoning for the
>  same.

It's not the necessary for the chair to do that in order for
discussion and editing work on a particular draft to proceed. We
can have a specification in Editor's Draft and do anything we want
with it -- up to the point where it's time to decide as a group if
we want to transition it to FPWD. We can then evaluate whether our
charter permits us to publish it or not. If the existing charter
doesn't, then we can ask to amend the charter.

>  If none of the chairs are interested, then we have a bigger
>  problem.

What precisely would that bigger problem be? As far as I can see,
at this point, I think the case is that we may have one specific
proposal that you believe has not received adequate attention from
the group. If that's not the case, what other specific proposals
are you aware of that we have had problems with?

But if it is the case that the issue really is with one specific
proposal, I really wish we could discuss that one specific
proposal instead of making a process issue out of this.


Michael(tm) Smith
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 03:19:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:54 UTC