Ben Adida wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
I'm concerned whenever I see a group of people voting as a block, be it
a group of people that work for a single vendor, are in the same group
or task force.
This is dangerous territory. I represent Creative Commons, which pays
W3C dues. As of a few days ago, I'm a member of the HTML WG (after
having been encouraged to join by you). How does anyone get to say that
my vote doesn't count? Who gets to decide who votes as a block? Does the
WHATWG vote as a block? Probably, and probably with a lot more sway than
any other group.
Ultimately, and in order: the chairs, the Interaction Domain Lead, and
then the Director of the W3C. I fully understand that it will be messy
and that there will be escalations. I simply plan to do everything in
my power to document decisions to the point where such challenges will
be unnecessary and, if pursued, not fruitful.
Manu and I are not employed by the same organization. If he and I don't
get independent votes, then by that same reasoning, all WHATWG folks
within the HTML WG should get one vote.
But let's be a little bit more specific: it was clearly stated that the
HTML WG functions on a Commit-Then-Review process. Certainly, that's how
proposals such as micro-data appeared: Ian came up with it on his own,
and added it to the spec. Since then, he's received support for his
proposal, but that was *after* it was published on blogs and tweets that
micro-data was a new addition to the HTML5 spec.
I have stated that the WHATWG (note: WHATWG, not HTML WG) is operating
under a CTR process. This is not a prerequisite for how others that may
wish to draft proposals need operate. In fact, the input I have
received to date indicates that the PFWG will be drafting proposals
based on a more traditional approach of obtaining consensus of those
that wish to participate.
Other proposals should get exactly the same treatment.
I intend to do exactly that. There was a *lot* of discussion before the
W3C agreed to publish the WHATWG draft as a W3C draft. If anything, now
that the path has been paved, the process should be a *lot* less painful
to new drafts.
Of course, eventually, some protocol will need to be followed to
determine the final HTML5. But, in the meantime, different rules cannot
apply to different proposals.
No question. As a clear example: I don't believe that there is anybody
here who can say that Mike's draft is anywhere near as complete or has
anywhere near the same level of support as Ian's.
I fully understand that the question on RDFa vs microdata isn't quite as
crisp. My person perception is that the microdata proposal is more
completely defined (read that as: less open questions) than the RDFa in
HTML proposal at this point. Once that is addressed (and I have every
expectation that it is a matter of when not if), I personally will
support the publication of this as a draft product of the working group,
and will encourage others to do likewise.
-Ben
- Sam Ruby
