Re: Who is the Intended Audience of the Markup Spec Proposal?

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On Jan 28, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> [moved to www-archive]
>>>>
>>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>>> I personally would prefer the Work Group spends its time 
>>>>>> discussing actual tangible proposals.  And to provide everybody 
>>>>>> equal opportunity to produce such proposals.
>>>>> I think anyone is free to make a proposal, but that doesn't mean we 
>>>>> should publish every proposal as a Working Draft.
>>>>
>>>> This is an example of the a discussion that doesn't lead to HTML5 
>>>> becoming a better spec.
>>> My goal in this particular discussion is to prevent it from becoming 
>>> a worse spec, as I see it. Furthermore, I believe I have done more 
>>> than most people to make HTML5 a better spec, and on the whole I 
>>> don't think discouraging me from participating in mailing list 
>>> discussions will make HTML5 a better spec. I know you have done much 
>>> to make HTML5 a better spec as well, I am not trying to compare 
>>> credentials, but I do think it is unfair of you to lecture me on this 
>>> point.
>>
>> Your credentials are unquestioned.  It is that one specific statement 
>> that borders on a tautology that I am questioning.
> 
> My statement was made in light of your suggestion to publish almost any 
> reasonable proposal as a Working Draft regardless of objection, as long 
> as a small number of people agree. My understanding, and correct me if I 
> am wrong, is that you indeed believe that "we should publish every 
> proposal as a Working Draft", with only the limitation that it be a 
> good-faith proposal with at least a handful of supporters. And I also 
> get the impression that you believe that if a proposal is not published 
> as Working Draft, then it is by definition not receiving fair 
> consideration. If I misunderstood your position, then please help me 
> understand. If I understood correctly, then I disagree, and the line you 
> quoted states the point of disagreement.

Closer.

I see a vast difference between "every proposal" to "reasonable 
proposal".  I also continue to see a vast difference between "agree" and 
"and will agree to review and comment on the document".  A difference 
between "I'm not stopping you" and "I'm engaged".

For others joining this thread, here is the original proposal:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0414.html

As near as I can tell, the process for FPWD is was designed to enable 
widespread review, and not as a choke point.  I'm confident that there 
are mailing lists at the W3c where discussions as to whether or not FPWD 
are necessary or even a good idea can be held.  Until such is done, I'd 
like this working group to operate under the assumption that they are.

>>>> Nor is it particularly good argument, as it is predicated on a fallacy:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
>>> I do not see how my statement is an example of a false dilemma. 
>>> Indeed, quite the opposite. I am arguing for the middle ground of 
>>> giving proposals due consideration, and publishing those that have 
>>> undergone sufficient discussion and review, and which seem promising 
>>> enough to put on the standards track, as First Public Working Drafts. 
>>> Is there anything unreasonable about that?
>>> Has anyone asked Mike to stop editing his document, demanded that he 
>>> remove it from W3C space, or refused to engage him on the technical 
>>> merits of his approach? To the contrary: many would love to discuss 
>>> what he is doing and why it may or may not be the right thing, but 
>>> you would like to barrel ahead without having that discussion.
>>
>> Can we agree to simply capture the issues and move on?  And to block 
>> progress of any and all Working Drafts to the Proposed Recommendation 
>> status until all such issues are disposed of one way or another?
> 
> No, we cannot agree to this. First of all, all serious known issues 
> should be disposed of by, at the very latest, Last Call. Thus, a Working 
> Draft should not even be in a position to proceed to PR if serious 
> disagreements remain unresolved. Further, I think some issues are of 
> sufficient gravity that they should be raised and discussed before even 
> the First Public Working Draft, and issues such as appropriate scope or 
> "should this even exist as a normative specification" are in this category.
> 
> Indeed, you and fellow co-Chair Chris Wilson both availed yourselves of 
> the opportunity to raise these kinds of issues as part of the process of 
> taking HTML5 to FPWD, and indeed sought to prevent publication until 
> some of them were resolved to your satisfaction. While you both 
> ultimately backed off in your opposition, I believe you were given more 
> than ample opportunity to be heard.
> 
> Are you going to allow others the same opportunity?

I believe I addressed all of the above in another email:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0469.html

I used words which were unclear, you asked for a clarification, and I 
have provided it.

>>> If you think I am making weak arguments, then by all means, show me 
>>> why. But so far, you haven't directly engaged any of my substantive 
>>> points, instead diverting into this meta-meta-meta-discussion of 
>>> whether I should be making them.
>>>> The current process disenfranchises many.  Perhaps not you, but many.
>>> Have you considered whether you may be disenfranchising those who 
>>> disagree with you by forbidding them to even discuss the reasons for 
>>> their disagreement, or to propose alternate ways of proceeding and 
>>> giving justification for their stance?
>>
>> I would like to enable more people to pursue alternate ways of 
>> proceeding.
> 
> But ultimately, some alternatives are mutually exclusive. Either there 
> are multiple documents normatively specifying the same thing, or there 
> are not. Either there are disjoint specs for content producers and 
> content consumers (or some other non-feature-based line of division) or 
> not. At some point these decisions have to be made.

I'm merely suggesting that FPWD is not that point.

> I believe that publishing an explicitly non-normative markup-only spec 
> is something almost everyone in the Working Group could agree on as a 
> first step, if we agree to later revisit the issue of whether it should 
> become a normative specification in its own right, once it has had all 
> the review and input we would like to expose it to. It seems wiser to me 
> to proceed with this widely agreeable compromise, rather than to push a 
> more controversial approach. I have not seen any comments from you on 
> that proposed approach.

If this were applied consistently to all WDs, I might understand that 
argument.  But I have zero interest in requesting that such a criteria 
be applied to Hixie's draft.  And even if I did not have that issue, the 
thought asking reviewers to review drafts which are explicitly and 
intentionally not written as they are intended is counter-productive. 
I'd like to echo the suggestion made by Larry:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0311.html

Let's ask that all working drafts make explicit notes of controversies, 
and do so in a straightforward, non-histrionic way and get on with the 
business of this working group which at this point is to publish working 
drafts.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 15:26:56 UTC