Hi, Martijn-
Martijn wrote:
2007/6/28, Doug Schepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Martijn wrote:
>
> Sorry, I meant that I won't participate anymore.
> I'm just getting unhappy by this and it's affecting the work that I
> really should be doing.
I'm very sorry to hear that. I don't want you to feel like you were
forced out of the process, and I hope that with time you will
participate again.
I do feel I was forced out of the process.
No, no one has been forced out of the process. If you choose not to
participate, it's unfortunate, but it is your choice.
Apparently things were
decided without informing anyone subscribed on the mailing list.
Decisions get made all the time without informing the public list. The
decision to create this spec in the first place was not a public
decision. Most of the wording and functionality of the spec was the
work of a small group of people. Only when an issue is raised does the
debate start.
Informing people on the decision progress is an essential thing.
How could this happen? It should have never happened.
It happened through a miscommunication and through an inconclusive
decision process. It's unfortunate in my view, but it's not something
to lose sleep over, in this case.
The issue was voted upon, there was an outcome.
No, there was no vote. I was in the room, so I think I would know. The
names that were chosen by the group were selected by group process of
elimination, not by voting.
As it says in the process document [1], "A group should only conduct a
vote to resolve a substantive issue after the Chair has determined that
all available means of reaching consensus through technical discussion
and compromise have failed, and that a vote is necessary to break a
deadlock."
The keys there are "substantive" and "compromise". This is *not* a
substantive issue; the functionality remains the same. And the means by
which the names where chosen was a kind of compromise, as is the process
going on now. Several people are not thrilled with the new names, but
they aren't pressing it further; if you think you can come up with a new
name that hasn't been considered, and which you think will satisfy the
most or all of the people involved, by all means submit it. This spec
is not even in FPWD (First Public Working Draft) yet, nothing is set in
stone... but judging from the heat of this debate, I'd say you'd have to
come up with a pretty compelling set of names.
Now, the opposite is being done of what the outcome was.
Actually, that's not true. The new names are a substantial improvement
over get() and getAll(), as well as most of the other alternatives.
I can't believe that is normal. How often does that happen within the W3C?
About as often as you might expect in a loosely-run group of enormous
size and of diverse opinions where everyone contributes.
You win some, you lose some... I'm personally going to save my energy
for something more important to me.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Votes
Regards-
-Doug
