W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: WebIDL Spec Status

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 18:01:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqWQt8YZaXPBj9rAnSkF1A8-5b8N3cgvvVxgy=iUWYByJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
And also, I'd note that the general rough consensus from Google is that
/TR/ tend to be far less valuable than "TRs in flight", so to speak.
 Although I'm personally understanding of the need to checkpoint and have
firm targets for precisely the reason Glenn mentions, I'd point out that
the current implementations of the Process make that process so incredibly
slow as to make TRs generally obsolete.


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 6/24/14, 1:46 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> The primary goal of the W3C is to produce Technical Reports that reach a
>> stable level of maturity.
>>
>
> The Technical Reports are not an end in themselves.  They're a means to an
> end.  This is why we don't produce Technical Reports that just say "do
> whatever" if we can avoid it, because that would fail to fulfill our
> _actual_ goals (which might differ for different W3C members of course; for
> some of them maybe "do whatever" is good enough for their purposes).
>
> You're correct that sometimes the production of the Technical Report is
> viewed as an end in itself in an attempt to bridge the different member's
> actual goals.  Sometimes this works ok, and sometimes the result is a TR
> that is useless to some subset of members.
>
> I happen to be affiliated with a member for whom most TRs (possibly all of
> them) as practiced by the W3C tend to be somewhat useless compared to the
> process of putting together the TR, so I have certain biases in that regard.
>
>  If a WG fails to move a technical report to REC then it has failed its
>> chartered purpose (as far as that report is concerned).
>>
>
> Yes, agreed, as the W3C process is set up right now.  It's a bug, not a
> feature.  ;)
>
>  In my capacity in this WG, I represent a Full Member who pays for
>> membership in order to see technical work reach completion.
>>
>
> Is this Member willing to devote resources to getting there?
>
> Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have a REC of Web IDL.  I'm saying that
> currently there's a perverse incentives problem: the only people who have
> stepped up to edit the spec are the ones who are affiliated with a Member
> which can'e make much use of a Web IDL REC in its current state all that
> much.  Which means that they end up, consciously or not, not prioritizing
> reaching REC on Web IDL v1, say, particularly highly.
>
>  In the current situation, I think the best course would be for the chair
>> and team members of this group to attempt to work with the editor to
>> define a reasonable schedule for moving it forward to REC, and, if
>> necessary call for volunteer co-editors if the current editor is unable
>> to invest sufficient time to see through that process.
>>
>
> Yep, we agree.
>
> -Boris
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 23:01:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:25 UTC