Hi, Ian-
Ian Hickson wrote:
As you say, the WG here just moved from one minority opinion to another
minority opinion. So this isn't a case where Anne's decision was not
representative of the wider community.
You're implying with the term "minority opinion" that there was a
"majority opinion" (there wasn't), which is misleading. In this case,
Anne's opinion was also at odds with past naming conventions, which
would decrease API consistency.
Given those two points, I don't see why the WG would override the editor
on this case.
The WG didn't override the editor. The issue was raised in public, and
had proponents on both sides, both WG members and other interested
parties. The WG merely settled the issue, based in part on public feedback.
(And yes, I think a benign dictator (Anne) answerable to a committee (the
WG) and representing the wider community will create far better
specifications than a committee (the WG) answerable to a dictator (TBL)
and representing the interests of only the companies involved.)
Great, so we agree that the WG has the final say, not the editor.
Someone needed to settle the discussion, and those of us who attended
the meeting did so.
What makes those of us who can afford to pay the W3C membership fee and
afford to attend the meetings more entitled to make this decision than the
rest of the community, or than the editor?
The meeting can be attended by all WG members (or other W3C members who
make the request) via phone or IRC. This includes Invited Experts,
whose only "fee" is that they have specific expertise.
I'm not qualified to judge whether the W3C should be more open to
non-paying members, but I do wonder where their operating costs would
come from if it were completely free.
And the editor, in this case, does work for a paying member company (and
he is paid to write specs), so I'm not sure why you think this would be
more egalitarian or non-capitalist.
Regards-
-Doug
