Re: Improving Communication and Expectations
Hi Marc, On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Marc Silbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Marcos, I totally understand why you would be frustrated by our behavior here. I owe you, Anne, Art and the rest of the WAF group an apology for falling off the radar without telling you where I was going. I am definitely sorry for that. I'm sorry I didn't raise this issue earlier (and more politely). I remember having good conversations with you and others at the Boston f2f on access control and then in email shortly after. I stopped attending WAF calls and we stopped giving feedback on access control for a long while so I can understand why you think we vanished to do our own thing. This was mostly due to the fact that my role in IE changed a little over a year ago and I started working more on accessibility (PF WG) and then at a different capacity altogether. When I was active in WAF, it wasn't at all clear to me that members of the Web API WG intended to apply the WAF's access control model directly to XHR. As a result, I didn't make our XDR team aware of Web API's work. We want to avoid this in the future by having more IE folks participate in the various WGs. It also helps that Web API and WAF are merged now too. I want to step back for a moment; I joined the IE team during our rebirth if you will. We largely have a new team of people working on IE now and you're starting to see some of us be a part of the W3C. I'll be the first to admit that we're making mistakes during our reentry into the standards conversation. We care deeply about our common web developer and we really want to work with you and others in the working groups to improve standards. I think everyone in the WG shares those goals. We're always open to constructive feedback on how we can better engage. I'm hopeful that we can work through the group's climate and technical issues together quickly. It goes without saying that we have a lot of respect for the folks in the group and so I'm also hopeful that our feedback will be taken seriously. I guess the simplest thing is to communicate. That does not mean anyone expects Microsoft to disclose product information. If you guys are busy, and need to drop off for a while let us know. We all rely on Microsoft, who has the largest market share in this space, to be engaged so we don't end up with you guys dropping an XDR-bomb on the group and more fragmentation on the Web. I say this because all other desktop browser vendors actively participated in the design of Access-Control and chose not to run off and do their own thing (but they could have). When you guys run off and do your own thing (as was the case with XDR), people may start coming up with all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories [1] as to why you did that. Kind regards, Marcos [1] http://datadriven.com.au/2008/06/18/ie8-xdomainrequest-conspiracy-theory/ -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au http://standardssuck.org
Re: Improving Communication and Expectations
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:24:12 +0200, Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be fair, I want to note that during this same timeframe, we have been holding regular telcons for DOM3 Events, and that Travis Leithead (also of Microsoft's IE team) has been very helpful and productive, and has fulfilled his actions in a timely and considerate manner. We have had plenty of telcons for Access Control, close to none (if not none) attended by Microsoft: http://www.google.com/search?q=WAF+WG+Access+Control+Voice+Conf -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: Improving Communication and Expectations
On Jun 16, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: Hi, Maciej- You may have misunderstood what I wrote. I did not propose that issues be brought up and solved in a binding manner during a single telcon (though some minor issues may be, in the interest of acting in a suitably-paced manner). As I clearly stated, the issues should be raised, discussed via email and supporting documents, giving everyone a chance to give input... the decision would be done during the telcon after the data has been collected, to draw the issue to a close. I honestly don't see how you could have jumped to your conclusion, unless you didn't read my email. I just assumed that telecons would work as they do in every W3C WG I have seen that makes binding decisions in telecons: 1) I have never seen a W3C Working Group chair take an actual roll call or ask for affirmative support when proposing a resolution in a telecon, just no objections? and a 30 second pause before the resolution is declared to pass. 2) I have rarely seen telecon decisions tabled because it was a new issue without adequate prior discussion. I have often seen an issue discussed for a total of 5-10 minutes (without significant prior email discussion) before a resolution is proposed 3) I have often seen telecon decisions ignore prior email feedback because many people hadn't bothered to read it, or since the person who'd sent the email was not present. If you are instead proposing a new kind of telecon-based binding decision-making that would not have these problems then I'd be interested in hearing more about it. I think the bottom line is that different people have different working styles. Some, like you, appreciate the heartbeat and sense of inclusion of weekly phone meetings. Others, like me, feel uncomfortable trying to make quick judgments on technical issues without adequate time to think about them, and do not find it a good use of time to listen to those who are happy to discuss without studying the matter. That's particularly likely to be true, I think, for those of us who have day jobs working on implementations or other areas of standards, but such people are highly likely to have relevant technical input as well. If binding decisions should be made in telecons, the working group would favor people with your kind of working style over those with my working style. I would strongly prefer if we had a way of making decisions that could be inclusive of both of these working styles. Perhaps this can be achieved with a combination of teleconferences, email discussion of proposals made in telecons, and a decision process where both phone people and email people can participate in a way they find comfortable. Perhaps a roll call voice vote plus web survey would do it. Or maybe just the web survey would do, if telecons remind people to vote. Regards, Maciej
