- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:33:50 +0100
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:20:00 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote: > Hear hear. > > I'm using "open" in the senses of: > * Accessible to all; unrestricted as to participants: an open > competition. > * Free from limitations, boundaries, or restrictions: open registration. > * Free of prejudice; receptive to new ideas and arguments: She listened > to the proposal with an open mind. I'm amazed I didn't believe a WG with even less openness than the W3C could exist, let alone created. Thanks for the clarification on to what you mean by openness (which seems to be closed other than you can post to our mailing list) [my quote trimmed to just the salient part to make sure I'm confirming the right bit, it's not intended to mislead] > > > If the WHAT-WG come out say - "not everything's public, it's not an > > > open process, > > Sure we have. In fact we've never said anything _but_ this. The guiding prinicple was for an open process: | Open process | The Web has benefited from being developed in an open environment. So either it's not an open process as you've "never said" or you're going against the position paper that was supposed to be what told us this was all about - which is it? Jim.
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2004 03:33:50 UTC