RE: Seeking earlier feedback from MS [Was: IE Team's Proposal for Cross Site Requests]
I want to be clear here. I can see how my email can be misunderstood but I think the point I've been trying to make is that email discussions are not substitute for the F2F. In the next 2 weeks I'll certainly attempt to answer questions and comments when I can. Ian, no doubt we are unique in the field of delays on features\projects at the W3C. I'm going to refain from engaging in a personal 'he said she said' two way on email however I will make an exception and take time to clarify (another one of) your combative comments\polemic that is just not constructive and takes away from more useful conversations we've had in the past. As you yourself have said, minutes for telecons and F2F's are poor. I did not commit to mid to late November. I said in TPAC I wold try to give security feedback 6 weeks to 2 months after the event. In a number of events that followed I had a family emergency and was indisposed for awhile. The point has been made, I'm sorry and would like to bury the hatchet and move on... From: Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 1:12 AM To: Sunava Dutta; Michael(tm) Smith Cc: Jonas Sicking; Arthur Barstow; Marc Silbey; public-webapps@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Eric Lawrence; Chris Wilson; David Ross; Mark Shlimovich (SWI); Doug Stamper; Zhenbin Xu Subject: RE: Seeking earlier feedback from MS [Was: IE Team's Proposal for Cross Site Requests] On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, Sunava Dutta wrote: [Sunava Dutta] We're kind of heads down in our development cycle with IE8 and the F2F is the first opportunity to discuss this at length. I honestly am not sure it's worth Google's time for me to attend this meeting if it's going to be hijacked to talk about input that everyone specifically agreed would be discussed in advance of the meeting. We can't make educated decisions in a face to face meeting if we haven't had the time to discuss them before hand. This was clearly discussed and established weeks ago. On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Michael(tm) Smith wrote: You've yet to actually even deliver the comments to the group in a way that makes it possible for members of the group to even read them at all. You've missed the deadline you agreed to initially (June 6) and also have missed the adjusted date you committed to providing them (Tuesday or Wednesday this week at the latest). For the record, the deadlines Sunava originally agreed to were mid to late November 2007. That's over six months ago now. http://www.w3.org/2007/11/09-webapi-minutes.html -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Improving Communication and Expectations (was: Seeking earlier feedback from MS [Was: IE Team's Proposal for Cross Site Requests])
Hi- Ian Hickson wrote (on 6/15/08 11:11 PM): If this was an isolated incident, one might be more willing to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, but it is just one more example in a long history of such behaviour that started long before I got involved in the standards world in the late 90s. If Microsoft want to improve their reputation, they should go above and beyond being good citizens, not continue this long trend of half-hearted participation. 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. Perhaps part of the problem lies in not having regular and consistent contact with other participants in the group. I think this is good evidence that having telcons improves communication and accountability, and establishes a sense of urgency and schedule. Making decisions during telcons can help prevent dragging out issues. It also helps humanize the actors, and improves our ability to work as a team, even when we work for rival organizations I encourage the chairs of the new WebApps WG to start holding regular telcons in which binding decisions are made, based on evidence presented in email, wikis, tests, other documents, and (yes) verbal discussion. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF
Re: Seeking earlier feedback from MS [Was: IE Team's Proposal for Cross Site Requests]
Sunava Dutta wrote: Woo hooo, my first mail to the new webapps alias! -:) Thanks for waiting for us to get feedback in from people across MSFT. As promised, here is the whitepaper on client side cross domain security articulating the security principles and challenges (high level and specifics ) of the current CS-XHR draft. I've also addressed the questions members raised in the FAQ. Thanks Sunava, I look forward to reading this once it is available in an acceptable license. However, I would further hope that you are able to discuss the feedback that are sure to be raised? As with your initial feedback, much of the results of these discussions will also require research and so it is good if we can get as much done before the face to face as possible. As Jonas and Art mention, in order to provide the opportunity for members to research and usefully discuss the contents and other issues, lets talk about our concerns among other items F2F in the first week of July. Yes, though I do want to point out that there are many other issues too to discuss at the F2F other than microsofts feedback. Speaking of which, do we have an agenda yet for the F2F meeting? Look forward to hosting the members here in Redmond. Looking forward to seeing you there! Best Regards, Jonas Sicking
Re: Seeking earlier feedback from MS [Was: IE Team's Proposal for Cross Site Requests]
Sunava Dutta [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-06-13 14:36 -0700: [Sunava Dutta] We're kind of heads down in our development cycle with IE8 and the F2F is the first opportunity to discuss this at length. Personally, I have other urgent pending standards related items in HTML 5.0 and Web Apps that I'll be having to attend to. I don't find that acceptable. Everyone in the group has been waiting for your long-delayed detailed comments with the expectation that they would read them, evaluate them, and then respond to them in the same way that they read and respond to any other comments posted to the discussion. You've yet to actually even deliver the comments to the group in a way that makes it possible for members of the group to even read them at all. You've missed the deadline you agreed to initially (June 6) and also have missed the adjusted date you committed to providing them (Tuesday or Wednesday this week at the latest). When you do finally provide them to the group in the way that you've been asked to (that is, without requiring members to agree to a license in order just to read them, and in plain text or HTML or short of that, as a PDF attachment), just dropping the comments on the group and then saying that you have no plans to discuss them at length during the next two weeks is not going to work. --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/ http://sideshowbarker.net/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
