- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:33:51 -0500
- To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 03/11/2016 05:30 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote: > Ultimately we were always going to disappoint one group of proposal > editors. That is not at all what I was led to believe. Hopefully you did not mean it how I read it. We had many discussions on the approach of keeping the two proposals separate. Our position was that it would be seen as a competition, it would divide the group, and it was generally a bad idea. Others, including yourself, indicated that we needn't be so concerned, it wouldn't be seen as a competition, and a likely outcome would be the creation of a new spec that merged the proposals together. Of course, an adoption of both proposals followed by a merge of them should not have been disappointing to anyone. In fact, that would have been the preferred outcome for anyone who believes in working together to achieve consensus. So the sentiment that "we were always going to disappoint" contradicts that idea. One lesson here (and there were many lessons) is this: Don't split up into factions and develop multiple competing specifications. It's a disaster waiting to happen and pits the group against itself. Instead, bring proposals into the group *from the start* and work on the them together. -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 15:34:18 UTC