On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:43:50 +0100, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
Web specifications affect everyone in the Web community, and so Web
specifications should be developed in the open. The term "Working Group
Member" is misleading -- there should not be anything special to being a
W3C member when it comes to the development of Web technologies. Given
the
prohibitively high price of W3C membership, not to mention the cost of
attending regular meetings around the globe, it is absolutely imperative
that we not limit equal participation to only those capable of paying the
W3C to become Working Group members.
Thus, an editor's responsibility is not simply to make sure the will of
the "Working Group Members" is reflected in the spec -- the editor's
responsibility is to make sure the will of the entire Web community is
reflected in the spec, and the Working Group's responsibility is to make
sure that the editor indeed does this.
I suppose you agree though, that after discussing something in the open
(Hey, even I was able to comment on the naming scheme. My voice was heard,
without being member of any w3c group.) someone needs to take a decision.
It seems natural that a working group concludes on something based on the
feedback it gets, and as far as I can see the result is according to that,
in this matter.
You might argue that an open mailing list is not enough to be called an
open process, but that is another matter altogether. I'm sure there are
measures to take to emphasize the wish and need of feedback when creating
specs that are meant to cater for the web community rather than a group,
as you say this particular spec is supposed to do.
...
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
