Re: Chaos, Process

At 05:48 PM 6/1/00 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>(Something can be axiomatic in the design without being published at all!)

But describing it as 'axiomatic' to a wide audience that has no direct
contact with the 'keepers of axioms' is counterproductive at best.
Publication - with 'official' status - would help keep the rest of us from
being surprised, at least.

>We agree we need a better process for refining general architectural
>invariants. It may look like the process for redining the process.

It's needed, if you want to treat anything as axiomatic.

>You need a small number of strong global invariants and a
>large number of weak local ones, and everything in between.
>So the more strong, the more occasional.  This is the art.
>Not anarchy or total centralized control.

There is art there, though I'd suggest you find art without strong global
invariants per se.  Philosophy's battled this for a few centuries, and
while there are those who are fond of axioms, not everyone shares the need
for their existence.

>The use of URI for important concepts such as namespaces is such a tie, "to
>take an arbitrary example".

Then the use of URI for namespaces needs to be better defined, in public,
through a process that involves lots of different parties.  Describing it
as 'the tie that binds' without going through said process is not very
convincing.

>>'There is no veto'?  I thought the Director of the W3C had real power over
>>Recommendations, limited only by the costs of infuriating large blocs of
>>members but (within the process itself) absolute nonetheless.  I suspect
>>this leads to smaller vetoes within W3C process as well, but can't confirm
>>that.
>
>There is no veto. There is a judgement as to whether the process has been
>done appropriately.  There is a concept of a consensus, which implies
>unanimity, or unanimity with abstention, or a minority report. Minority
>reports have to be taken up to the next stage.  This is the general idea
>throughout the process. A veto means one person saying no over 
>everyone else. That can't happen. 

If the Director of the W3C were in fact perfectly unbiased and utterly
judicious, I might believe that, but I don't expect that of human beings,
whoever they may.  W3C process does come down, in the end, to the approval
of the Director.

And that Director can't take his hat off, ever, and expect to be treated as
a peon, unless the Director is pulling the classic prince-as-pauper
routine.  (Hotmail account?)

>You are preaching to the converted here.  I wouldn't have started this list
>if
>I didn't believe in the value of getting the issues out in an open
>referencable discussion.

Good!  I expect this list will be referenced for years to come.

>You have explained that, while a public list officially has no
>accountability,
>it can have an ethos of responsability.  So can the W3C.

So you're suggesting that the W3C is responsible without being accountable?
 I find that an unfortunate stance for a formal organization that claims to
shepherd the Web, if in fact that's what you're suggesting.

>Who is this "w3c itself"? It is developers too, people with very much the
>same needs as you who develop stuff but have chosen not to join.  You could
>argue in the same way that xml-uri or xml-dev is not responsible to a larger
>body of people.  But in the end, groups have to form and do their best and
>do what they can to keep in touch.

Groups have to form and do what they can, but groups that can reach and
include larger bodies of people are more likely to achieve buy-in that
extends beyond 'I bought the product, so now what?'  Groups might also do
well (and some do) to remember their contingency, that they are happenings
of a moment, not pillars for eternity.

>If there are technical invariants which I think are important then I will
>continue to push them as I am doing on this list in order to preserve
>the essential and really exciting prpoerties of the web.

Your technical invariants aren't my technical invariants, and I really do
wish you'd stop pushing them as invariants.

>Suggestions, though, for friendlier forms of community outreach in general?

Sure!  Start public discussions before they become controversial and
insoluble.   Set questions, not answers.

>I appreciate that. Many people on this list make great contributions to the
>community.
>
>How can we fit this in with work being done in more structured groups? Some
>have not made the commitment to be on a working group,
>maybe because they want to operate only on public lists and the groups you
>would have been interested in used closed lists (not all do), maybe becasue
>they want to participate but cannot predict at what levels, maybe because
>they find the group works using long distance telephone or airplanes

Maybe the W3C could look more outward toward user communities rather than
inward to staff and members, stop demanding 'commitment' and start looking
for interesting ideas rather than generating them or absorbing them into
internal process.

There have been a lot of times when you've mentioned the 'Web community',
but I fear that you just mean the 'W3C community', which is rather different.

>>Well, at least the intent is good.  I've been happy to see a number of
>>working groups (XLink, XML Schema) using their public lists quite actively,
>>a nice change from previous times when public questions went (publicly,
>>anyway) unanswered.
>
>I really want to make sure that that doesn't happen again.
>I am not accepting a review which says, of a comment, "we discussed that
>and we decided it was misinformed", unless it says "and here is a link to
>the message saying so" and ideally the achnolowedgement.

That's a huge step forward, and one I'm delighted to see.  It seems this
recent battle could have been avoided had such a process been in place
earlier:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0218.html

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 22:29:16 UTC