Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Peter Kasting wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM, John Foliot > wrote: > > That said, the barrier to equal entry remains high: > http://burningbird.net/node/28 I don't necessarily agree with most of Shelley's take on the situation. I do agree with the

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

John Foliot wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: Really? This appears to be exactly the single, special status privilege currently reserved for Ian Hickson. False. ...and yes, I stand corrected. Although the *impression* that this is the current status remains fairly pervasive; however I will endeavor t

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM, John Foliot wrote: > That said, the barrier to equal entry remains high: > http://burningbird.net/node/28 I don't understand. That page says "We're told that to propose changes to the document for consideration, we need to ..." and then a long list of things.

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

John Foliot wrote: Peter Kasting wrote: It seems like the only thing you could ask for beyond this is the ability to directly insert your own changes into the spec without prior editorial oversight. I think that might be what you're asking for. This seems very unwise. Really? This appears to

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Maciej Stachowiak wrote: The lesson I would learn from open source is that finding people willing to do useful work is much more important than tools or project organization. While good projects strive to refine their process, my experience is that people who start out by asking project-wide

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > I would also caution that, by their nature, standards projects are not > > quite the same thing as software projects. While the way HTML5 has been > > run

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Jul 26, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: I would also caution that, by their nature, standards projects are not quite the same thing as software projects. While the way HTML5 has been run is much more in the spirit of open source than many past Web standard

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > WebKit also has, arguably, a more open development model than either > Linux or HTML5. There are many reviewers with the authority to approve > a checkin, even more people with the ability to directly commit to the > code after review, and even more people who have submit

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Peter Kasting wrote: > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Manu Sporny > wrote: > > > If people sending emails containing proposals, and having the editor > > directly respond to all of those emails, frequently by changing the > > spec, does not give you

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Jul 26, 2009, at 8:30 PM, Peter Kasting wrote: So far you have not given a use case (that I've seen) so much as a vague assertion that because the number of spec contributors is in the hundreds rather than tens of thousands, there is some not-well- defined barrier to entry in the above

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > I'm not proposing that we allow people to directly stomp all over Ian's > specification - that wouldn't help anything. I am also not suggesting > that Ian should change how he authors his HTML5 specification. > > What I'm proposing is that othe

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Michael Enright wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: >> I can git clone the Linux kernel, mess around with it and submit a patch >> to any number of kernel maintainers. If that patch is rejected, I can >> still share the changes with others in the community. Using the same >

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

I have only responded below to the parts of your email that I think are critical to the point you're making (as I understand it). On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > > If people sending emails containing proposals, and having the editor > directly respond to all of those emails

Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Peter Kasting wrote: > Ian is really the only one that is actively allowed to produce anything > of significance in WHAT WG. In general, if he doesn't agree with you, it > doesn't go in. > > It's already been stated explicitly multiple times in the past that the > HTML5 process is not