- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:19:33 -0700
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-webapps@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
[much appreciated information snipped -- thanks!]
> I really don't see how the review process and accountability could
> be much more open for the development of Web IDL elsewhere, nor is
> the burden on reviewers that large... it would simply be one more
> low-traffic mailing list. Are there other barriers you see?
I alluded to employers who are not currently paying W3C members not
wanting their employees participating, even individually. I'll let one
notable example that I know of speak for himself.
The "mailing list as firehose" problem can be solved with enough work,
but with two standards groups there is always greater risk of
conflict, and just competition for attention. Two lists is simply one
more list than one list to keep up with.
This is a price of collaboration at wider scale, so don't let me stand
in the way, since I've been explicit about being in favor of
collaboration.
W3C and Ecma both have transparency issues, but I don't expect those
to be fixed easily. I mentioned them ("People in dark-glass houses ...
[should not throw stones]") in reply to Maciej asserting greater
openness on one side. Again this is not a "barrier" I'm trying to take
down right now.
/be
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 22:20:18 UTC