Hi Mike, On 03/01/2017 12:32 PM, Mike Hoye via governance wrote: > > > On 2017-02-28 6:35 PM, Douglas Crosher via governance wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The community might like to know that Mozilla has claimed authority to >> publish a WebAssembly MVP and appears to have done so, and the claim is >> signed by a Mozilla module peer. >> >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webassembly/2017Feb/0002.html > > That post is _co-signed_ by engineers from Mozilla, Google, Apple and > Microsoft, and makes the specific claim that there is consensus among > browser implementers from Mozilla, Google, Apple and Microsoft that the > design of the MVP is complete.
Yes, a qualified opening sentence, but the group as a whole did not decide this, and Mozilla did not even put out a call for consensus. How do you think the group feels having a subgroup dominate the chairs and deploy without their agreement. But then it makes much broader claims: "This marks the end of the Browser Preview and signals that browsers can begin shipping WebAssembly on-by-default. From this point forward, future features will be designed to ensure backwards compatibility." "The next steps will be to form a W3C Working Group, ..." The group as a whole did not decide to release wasm 1.0, but Mozilla and co have done that in effect by deploying wasm 1.0. > > This is a statement of fact, not a policy decision imposed by fiat. You > say "they have been asked" to surrender the Chair and hold elections, > but you should specify that _you_ were the person doing the asking, per > here: > > https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/934 > > ... and I note that the Administrator for W3C Community Groups did not > "appear to support" your position, but bluntly refuted it. While you may > disagree with the outcome of this process, these flagrant > mischaracterizations of public discussions will not convince anyone of > your position or change that outcome in the slightest. Sorry I believe you are mistaken, read more of that thread. The W3C policy as repeated in the link you supplied is: "The participants of the Group choose their Chair(s).” Mozilla did not allow "the Group" to choose their Chair(s), they took the chair and would not give it up. To this day we still have no explanation of how the chairs were appointed, and there were no notices of such business posted to the CG. There is also the matter that I was working in this area before the group was created, the grab for the chairs effectively excluded some views. I found it a was a toxic working environment. I am not going to go into it all, but I think Chris might agree that professionals might not want to engage in such a forum, so perhaps some people just did not bother or were deterred. Do you think it is doing my professional standing any good for my efforts? > You're welcome to email me directly if you'd like to discuss this > further, but I'm confident Governance is not the right place to continue > this. I would rather focus on the technical matters. If someone wants to go through the technical problems then get in touch, but I feel I have done all I can to raise the other issues so you fix those problems if you wish and let history be the judge. Regards Douglas Crosher _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
