[whatwg] Technical Parity with W3C HTML Spec

[Sam Ruby]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe the answer is to have a spokesperson or liaison role, someone
>> respected in the WHATWG community with a reputation for reasonable
>> neutrality?  Both Hixie and Maciej have conflicts of interest, as editor
>> and W3C co-chair respectively.  Maybe Hakon or David, since they were
>> instrumental in forming WHATWG in the first place?
>
> Maybe an alternative would be:
>
> "Where there are technical or political conflicts, W3C should decide how
> to resolve those internally, and how to represent the W3C point of view in
> the WHATWG. I would expect that people differ, so I would expect those
> different opinions to be represented in liaisons with WHATWG. I don't have
> a good answer here, because I think it's up to the W3C to decide their own
> processes, but I hope we agree that we need improvements to how we liaison."

First can we work on improving communications so that we can work on
differences before they become conflicts?

We recently had a change proposal made by Lachlan:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1107.html

Absolutely nobody in the W3C WG indicated any issues with this proposal:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0562.html

Recently you said that you value convergence:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0525.html

Yet, when you made the change, you did it in a way that made the
WHATWG version not a proper superset.  You also characterized the
change in a way that I don't believe is accurate:

http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004270.html

I'm having trouble reconciling all of the above.  You clearly continue
to be a member of the W3C Working Group.  You state that you value
convergence.  You were given ample opportunity to state an objection.
And you clearly have an issue with Lanlan's suggestion.

How can we improve communications to prevent misunderstandings such as
this one from occurring in the future?

What's the best way to address the mischaracterization of the
difference as it is currently described in the WHATWG draft?

Most importantly, how can we deescalate tensions rather that
continuing in this manner?

- Sam Ruby