W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:04:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fm5yJ5r5JdCtxusLjdjUEVuoXH3kBMrnyOPPQNaF98Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
For what it's worth, I did not interpret Ian's original remark as saying he
didn't follow W3C process; though I can see how someone may have parsed it
in that fashion.

In the original thread, nobody was claiming or denying following accepted
W3C process. Rather, I was suggesting that certain clauses in the process
document be referenced in a proposed warning to add to the DOM2 spec(s). I
continue to feel that approach is warranted and consistent with similar
statements of status found elsewhere in W3C specs.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> >
> > 2. Nonetheless, for situations that he is wearing his hat as Editor
> within a
> > W3C Working Group, he agrees to follow the W3C Process.
>
> My original statement was: "Nobody really follows the W3C process. Some
> claim to, others (such as myself) do not."
>
> To be more explicit: Nobody always follows the W3C process. Some claim to,
> others do not claim to. I do not claim to. Those who claim to tend to
> bring up the process when it helps their political needs, and ignore it
> when that is more convenient. Those who do not claim to tend to argue for
> their cases on technical merit instead. Bjoern has in the past written
> long missives documenting the many ways that people who claim to follow
> the process blithely ignore it when it's convenient.
>
> That isn't to say that everything I do violates the W3C process. On the
> contrary, sometimes I follow it more closely than W3C staff (e.g. the
> process requires chaters to describe the milestones for deliverables; W3C
> staff usually instead write woefully optimistic fiction even when I have
> provided them with realistic predictions).
>
> I do not agree to follow the W3C process blindly.
>
> I follow it, like everyone else, exactly to the extent that I think it
> requires us to do the right thing for the Web. When the process requires
> us to do something bad for the Web, I ignore it.
>
> (This is why, for example, I do not participate in the work required to
> make copies of the specs I work on for the TR/ page.)
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 01:05:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:12 UTC