Hiya Doug,
Hi, Bijan-
Bijan Parsia wrote (on 2/25/09 8:02 AM):
>
> Fortunately, I have member access and was able to go back :)
Which is why I included the link.
Yes! It was much appreciated.
You and I have talked about this
before, though, so it wasn't news to you.
Yes, and as I recall, I said, "I can't evaluate what you're saying
without access to the evidence" :)
> I don't think that link is, in context, clear support for your
qualms.
> It is a response to:
> (Member-confidential)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-binding-tf/2005JulSep/
0062.html
The claims there seem overstated,
I agree (with the "seem")...I'm just saying that the picture isn't
entirely clear. There are many explanations for why there was the
break, including that there was agreement and then (subsequent to
that post) people changed their mind.
given the subsequent email I allude
to, which was my assertion.
I'm happy to parse things more fine grainedly with you, if you like.
It's a bit awkward to do so when we can't quote :)
I've also chatted directly with the poster
of the email about it, and that reinforced my view.
Sure, but I haven't :)
> In which there may have been some overstating, but in other email
Ian
> seems to fairly consistently refer to "Opera and Mozilla". So
this could
> have been a simple miscommunication. Also, if you consider:
>
> (Member-confidential)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-binding-tf/2004AprJun/
0483.html
>
> Then Ian's picture has some more support.
Okay. I will note that the email I pointed to was dated some 15
months
after the one you refer to. So, the poster of both emails seems to
have
changed his mind in that intervening year.
I think with regard to the "thousand cuts" this is more dispositive.
But I agree, none of this is remotely conclusive.
Again, I wasn't there, but I
don't think that changes my overall assessment of the specification,
implementation, and deployment process.
Hmm. Ok, it would tweak mine, if yours were mine :)
> I can say, personally, that in groups I've been in, I've often felt
> stuck in the "I must concede" role and "compromise means I give
stuff up
> with nothing in return". Indeed, I've often felt that other
people won't
> even *try* to accommodate my view (e.g., I often find myself in
charter
> fights initiated by other people). When I do concede something
major,
> for the sake of progress, mind, that never seems to benefit me.
>
> Frankly, I hate that ;) It doesn't seem very healthy for a group,
either.
I think we've all been there. I think that's the way many people
in the
HTML5 WG (and who have dropped out of that group or given up on it)
feel
right now.
Absolutely. And it's a separate question as to whether they (or I!)
are right about compromisingness.
But your counterclaim to Ian's seems fairly weak. Instead of 3 he
clearly spoke for 2 appropriately.
The remaining 1 had, in the past, issued very similar and strongly
worded complaints.
Frankly, when I saw those two email juxtaposed, I was strongly
disposed toward your POV. Going back (and forward) farther and trying
to sort things out leaves me much more uncertain.
A little more context: AIUI, RCC was well on its way to being specced
out and was largely implemented when the SVG WG was asked to
combine its
efforts with XBL, a somewhat similar language, with the assertion that
sXBL (note the "s" for "SVG") would be SVG-specific, and the next
version of the language would be more generalized. So, the SVG WG had
already compromised, as well... it seems there was compromise on
both sides.
I don't think that addresses the email I referenced. I personally
have little hope of sorting out the truth of those claims or your
claims now, much less the subsequent judgments.
Specs change when more people are brought in. That's usually useful
(many eyes), but often painful. It's less useful for a spec to be
severely delayed or abandoned.
Less useful to whom? Which stakeholders?
One thing that drives my compromising a lot is that I value the spec
and getting the spec through more than other people. But this is a
dysfunction, I think. I could see myself getting driven into bomb
throwing. I really, in spite of some appearances :), try to avoid that.
> Now, I may be wrong in my assessment of my situation, but there
you go.
> I have no assessment of the sXBL case other than I don't find your
> pointer compelling in context.
Like I said, this was my interpretation, and I wasn't there. I only
know the end result, which was not favorable for anyone.
Probably! Hence my desire to figure out how to avoid it again. Which
starts in understanding it.
> P.S. Sorry for all the member confidential links and
obliqueness...but
> if you are going to raise this stuff publicly, then I don't know
what
> else to do.
Not a problem for me. Like I said, I wish that email list was public.
I pushed (successfully) to have the SVG and WebApps WG to be public
groups, so this sort of thing is subject to more sunlight in the
future.
Good show!
>It doesn't seem to me that the W3C has an Audit Board which
> tries to analyze failures and draw lessons from them. That could
be a
> very helpful thing.
Agreed.
Thanks for the discussion.
Cheers,
Bijan.
