[whatwg] some issues
jim.ley at gmail.com
Sun Jul 11 03:11:43 PDT 2004
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 08:55:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > Because the whole point of this is it's being done in the open, if it's
> > not an open process, don't pretend that it is, and don't pretend that
> > just keeping a latest draft available is open, it's not!
> Please describe, in detail, what you think an open process would be.
Discussion in the open, so any discussion is made in publically
archivable and referenceable sources, or where it's been made
otherwise (for whatever reason, privacy concerns by the submitter of
the issue, convenience on the part of those discussing it) Details of
the decision and the reasons why posted to such a public archive.
This doesn't stop you deciding all this elsewhere, it just means that
the decisions are in the open. At the moment, even on the list people
can raise issues with the specification, and something, may or may not
happen, but nowhere is it explained how - contrast this with even the
most secretive of W3 working groups, who have to respond to issues.
Let alone comparing it to groups who do all their work in public like
> > I don't particularly care if it's open or not (I'll have zero confidence
> > in the result, and the uptake of this if it's closed, I believe open is
> > key, just like the Mozilla Opera position paper states)
> You don't care if it is open or not, but think that it being open is key?
> Isn't that a contradiction?
No, openness is key to uptake. I don't care if it gets taken up,
there's nothing here that's sufficiently motivating enough to me to
worry about that. If it is though then I need to make sure it makes
sense for all my use cases etc. which is why I'm participating.
More information about the whatwg