Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> >
>> > ok, but i can't help but hearing an US vs THEM theme here; i certainly
>> > don't have the perception that the WHATWG is operating as a W3C entity
>> > or within W3C process
>>
>> There's definitely an "us" vs "them" here. There's the people doing the
>> work, and the people copying the work. Whether it's a WG copying a CG or
>> the W3C copying the WHATWG or even one editor in a WG copying the work of
>> another editor in the same WG, if it's done without the involvment of the
>> person doing the work, it's both introducing massive confusion to the
>> market (with multiple conflicting drafts that all claim to define the same
>> thing, resulting in lower interop because implementors don't know which to
>> follow), and it's just plain wrong (plagiarism). That anyone would do this
>> on a professional basis, or defend it once it happens, let alone that an
>> entire institution would support this, I find absolutly shocking.
>>
>
> From my view, it is a matter of misunderstanding of an ostensibly
> cooperative process that, if there are issues about attribution, should be
> worked out between the stakeholders on an amicable basis, and not by making
> claims of plagiarism.
>

BTW, the notion of plagiarism implies that the perpetrator is intending to
conceal the source. I think that is absolutely not the case here. Your
position appears to be excessively cynical, and effectively attributes bad
faith to the WebApps editors trying to move the process forward.