Re: example: the HTML WG process is not working

Hi Jeff,

I don't have answers and don't think it is up to me to provide those
answers, its what I would expect of the W3C management.
I already spend a lot of my free time working on W3C HTML accessibility
standardisation and participate in the process community group.

If you guys are already aware, then apologies for repeating the obvious,
but to date I haven't noticed any positive change despite the awareness.

In my view I witnessed a hollowing out of the HTML WG with a concomitant
reduction of its ability to participate meaningfully in the standardisation
of HTML.

I sincerely hope things do get better.

regards
Stevef


On 28 March 2012 14:50, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

>  On 3/28/2012 9:24 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Well if you think it is a healthy state of affairs that important
> stakeholders (ie various high profile implementor employees) don't
> participate in the working group because they consider it to be a joke, and
> publically state as much on a regular basis, then full steam ahead.
>
>
> No I don't think that is at all healthy.
>
>
>
> The divergence between HTML5 and the HTML living standard has little to do
> with snapshot versus continuous updates it has everything to do with the
> perception of who's hands the development of HTML is in.
>
> As a working group member all I can do is raise issues when i see them,
> the current non participation behvaiour of some folk works to my benefit in
> terms of getting the changes I want to see accepted, but the resulting
> divergence hurts developers and users.
>
>
> Yes, I agree that more participation is better.  I work on it every day.
>
>
>
> I would rather have robust debate about changes than acceptance trough non
> participation and forking, but that would involve all parties acting in
> good faith.
>
>
> I would love to have a robust debate about changes.  That is why I asked
> what you were trying to accomplish with the email.
>
> At one level, your email merely informed me and Philippe about some facts
> that we are already aware.
>
> I didn't see any proposal for changes.
>
> At a broader level, the AB is looking at broader changes in our process,
> but I'm not sure if that is the type of change you are proposing.
>
>
>
>
> regards
> Stevef
>
>  On 28 March 2012 14:10, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>  On 3/28/2012 8:56 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeff,
>> this is an example of a bug that was escalated as per the HTML WG process
>> that went rough the process and was deemed as having consensus in the
>> working group not because there is consensus, but because people who may
>> disagree with the change did not participate.
>>
>>
>>  Not sure what to do with this observation.  Our specs are always a
>> consensus of those that participate.  If some choose not to participate
>> then the spec will not reflect their views.
>>
>>
>>
>> The editor obviously disagreed as he rejected the bug, but did not enter
>> into any further discussion, his recent remarks on IRC strongly suggest he
>> thinks its a bad idea.
>> If the process is designed to standardise HTML then its not working, as I
>> point out, when the editor disagrees with a change he simply creates
>> another fork between the specs or to put it another way if the working
>> group does not accept what the editor has in the spec another fork is
>> created.
>>
>>
>>  Not sure what to do with this observation, either.  The process is for
>> the Chairs to determine the consensus of the Working Group even if the
>> editor disagrees.  Sounds like that is what is happening.  What are the
>> alternatives?  The editor is entitled to his opinion if he disagrees.  And
>> the WG is entitled to their opinion if they disagree with the editor.
>>
>> In terms of the divergence of the specs, I think it is a success story
>> that we have maintained alignment as long as we have.  And I agree it would
>> be highly desirable to continue to maintain alignment for HTML 5, as well
>> as HTML.next.  But it is mathematically impossible for us to freeze a REC
>> level HTML 5 and expect that to be in perfect alignment with a changing
>> WHAT WG LS.
>>
>>
>>
>> We appear to have gone from a state where there was active participation
>> to a state where there is passive denial of the legitimacy of the process
>> resulting in a consensual non-consensus.
>>
>> none of which can be described with a straight face as a working process.
>>
>> regards
>> stevef
>>
>> On 28 March 2012 13:39, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  Steve,
>>>
>>> I apologize, but I don't know what this is.
>>>
>>> Is this:
>>>
>>> 1. fyi, about timelines of issues?
>>> 2. An escalation of the Chairs for not dealing with this issue per the
>>> HTML 5 WG process?
>>> 3. An observation that the finalized HTML 5 spec as it moves forward
>>> (LC--> CR --> REC) will diverge from a continually updated WHAT WG Living
>>> Standard (with presumably re-syncing as we move to HTML.next)?
>>> 4. Something else?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/28/2012 8:19 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>>
>>> I want to clarify one point that I implied by this statement
>>>
>>> "I suspect while this change will be applied to the W3C HTML5 but not to
>>> the WHAT WG, resulting in further divergence between the 2 specs and
>>> further dilution of standardized authoring advice (in this case)."
>>>
>>> The active involvement of people, such as the editor in the HTML WG
>>> process, does not necessarily result in standardization of HTML being
>>> advanced. If the editor does not agree with a change to HTML decided by the
>>> working group its only applied to the W3C HTML5 spec [1].
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#is-this-html5
>>> ?
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Stevef
>>>
>>> On 28 March 2012 11:35, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Timeline of an issue: this is an example of a re-ocurring pattern [1]
>>>> Over a  5 month period, feedback and input was called for, a detailed
>>>> proposal was provided - total silence ensued, after the process is complete
>>>> the editor comments on IRC.
>>>> I suspect while this change will be applied to the W3C HTML5 but not to
>>>> the WHAT WG, resulting in further divergence between the 2 specs and
>>>> further dilution of standardized authoring advice (in this case).
>>>>
>>>> Timeline of an issue:
>>>>
>>>> ** Bug 14937* <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937> - Replace
>>>> poor coding example for figure with multiple images opened: 2011-11-25
>>>> 21:20:52 UTC
>>>>
>>>> * editor rejects https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c1
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c1%20>2011-12-07
>>>> 23:01:38 UTC
>>>>
>>>> Status: Rejected
>>>> Change Description: no spec change
>>>> Rationale: This isn't an antipattern. It is a best practice. If current
>>>> ATs
>>>> don't make it accessible, then I recommend approaching AT vendors and
>>>> explaining to them that they're not properly exposing HTML semantics.
>>>>
>>>> * feedback provided on rejection:
>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c2
>>>>
>>>> * No further response from editor
>>>>
>>>> * escalated to issue: Issue 190<https://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/190> 2011-12-08
>>>> 10:27:42 UTC
>>>>
>>>> * I submit a proposal<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle_captions>
>>>> :  January 18th, 2012.
>>>>
>>>> * Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0127.html> Wed,
>>>> 25 Jan 2012 14:42:45
>>>>
>>>> * NO counter proposals or feedback on  proposal
>>>>
>>>> * CfC: Close ISSUE-190 coding-example by Amicable Resolution
>>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0463.html>issued
>>>> Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:23:27
>>>>
>>>> As we have received no counter-proposals or alternate proposals, the
>>>> chairs are issuing a call for consensus on the proposal that we do have.
>>>>
>>>> If no objections are raised to this call by March 7th 2012, we will
>>>> direct the editor to make the proposed change. If anybody would like to
>>>> raise an objection during this time, we strongly encourage them to
>>>> accompany their objection with a concrete and complete change proposal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * No responses to CFC
>>>>
>>>> * Chairs issue: Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-190 coding-example
>>>> by Amicable Resolution
>>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0731.html>Mon,
>>>> 26 Mar 2012
>>>>
>>>> Commenst by editor on IRC: 2012-03-28 (it appears that this is the
>>>> first time the editor has looked at the proposal)
>>>>
>>>>    1. # <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-15> [00:16]
>>>>    <Hixie>
>>>>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle_captions#Details
>>>>    2. # <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-16> [00:16]
>>>>    <Hixie> really?
>>>>    3. # <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-17> [00:17]
>>>>    <Hixie> we're actually going to put an example in the spec _encouraging_
>>>>    nested figures?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-192 title-attribute by
>>>>    Amicable Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0558.html>
>>>>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>>>>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-188: generic-track-format by
>>>>    Amicable Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0557.html>
>>>>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>>>>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-187 validity-stability by
>>>>    Amicable Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0556.html>
>>>>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>>>>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-182 footnote-recommendation
>>>>    by Amicable Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0555.html>
>>>>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>>>>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-179 av_param by Amicable
>>>>    Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0554.html>
>>>>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>>>>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-170 rel-uri-valid by Amicable
>>>>    Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0553.html>
>>>>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> with regards
>>>>
>>>> Steve Faulkner
>>>> Technical Director - TPG
>>>>
>>>> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
>>>> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
>>>> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
>>>> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
>>>> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>