This starts almost the same as your other email for which I've not
finished replying. I take it that this one supercedes? I'll act that
way until informed otherwise.
On 22 Jun 2009, at 16:08, Larry Masinter wrote:
I'm not interested in pursuing a legalistic
review of the past and whether or not W3C
HTML WG has or hasn't been in "violation"
of the W3C process, because I don't think
it would be helpful.
Then I would suggest that you don't make such claims. When I see such
claims, qua member of the W3C community, I trying to investigate them
(time permitting). Process violations can trigger large disruptions
and can hurt mutual trust and smooth working whether or not they are
"dealt with" formally. The W3C tends to promote its process as part
of the benefit of working with the W3C, so I think that we should, as
a community, take some care in using the charge of process violation
(esp. when we don't intend anything to happen as a result) and try to
substantiate such claims.
I don't think your claims stand up and you've just said you are
unwilling to substantiate them. This leaves me a bit at a loss.
I accept without question that you do not like how the HTML WG is
running.
I didn't use the word "violation" in a formal
sense;
It's an odd choice of word, then.
the process document consists of guidelines,
not laws.
I don't see how that's relevant as to whether you can violate it.
Pretty clearly you can and certain consequences follow.
I worked on the process document
in the W3C Advisory Board,
I hope reasonable determinations of violation can be performed
without having had to have been on the AB that drafted the document.
That would make the process document of extremely limited utility.
so I think I
can speak to "intent".
Is intent relevant? Or strongly relevant?
I guess it is if you would say, now, "We meant that this situation
would not be process legal but left a loophole in the language. Thus,
I'm going to propose closing that loophole." But that's very much
unlike your statement. In this scenario, the HTML WG is in compliance.
If you had said, "I think the HTML WG is only nominally in compliance
with the charter while violating the spirit of it utterly," while I
still think that's disputable, it's certainly less urgent a matter.
For example, I'm pretty clear that the "SHOULD"
indicates a requirement. When a SHOULD requirement
is not followed, the reasons for not following it
should be documented, clear, transparent and agreed.
Do you agree that violating a SHOULD requirement is less egregious
than violating a MUST requirement?
The size of the working group, and the way decisions are made, are
all documented, reasonably clear, transparent, and agreed (via the
charter).
If your concern is about "timely responses" then I think the WG is
obviously not in violation of this SHOULD requirement. It is pretty
standard in the groups I've participated in to give a formal response
to non-LC comments *when* the WG has resolved the issue. If the issue
is contentious, that can take a while, but surely "timeliness" isn't
a matter of a fixed time period (e.g., "Speedy trials" can take
months or years to set up).
Perhaps you want that every comment gets an issue which can be
tracked? And that's a "formal response"? Well, ok, but that level of
detail is hardly mandated by the process.
Otherwise, you risk situations where actors
judge they are above judgment, assert their own
criteria for neutrality, and corrupt the process.
Of course. On the other hand, I think neutrality and proportionality
are important as well. I'm hard pressed to find textual and factual
support that the "W3C HTML Working Group violates the W3C process in
serious and significant ways". If the HTML WG *does* violate the
process on this front, it's pretty clearly in at most minor ways,
afaict. Furthermore, you aren't a neutral party in this having
already expressed personal issues and, arguably, having institutional
issues with the group.
This is why I asked for clarification from you. I don't think the
HTML WG should be self judging (but I don't think that it is), but I
also think that accusations of process violation have to be vetted
carefully, esp. when it come from a source (yourself) who has great
stature in the community (and can claim to have special expertise in
W3C process).
Personally the actual facts of the current
HTML WG astounded me, were not clear before
I joined the working group, only became clear
after months in the WG, are not apparent from
the W3C web pages describing the working group,
and are inconsistent, in my opinion, with the
intent and expectations of the process document.
As I said, I've observed the WG from the start. I've read every
email. It all seems well within bounds with both the process document
as written and with the practice of many other groups. It's better in
some respects than some, worse in others, and unusual in the way that
many groups are unusual.
I'll note that you seem to be conflating "intents and expectations of
the process document" with *your* intents and expectations. This is
not tenable, I hope you agree! Your bare claims can't be the basis of
procedural assessment (other AB members from the time might have
different views).
As with specs, we have to rely on the text for violation claims. For
*sense* and *wisdom* claims, obviously, things are different.
To put it another way, I don't see how to use this claim when
assessing future WG's process goodness without asking you. Indeed, I
still don't know what your specific complaint is! It can't be
"keeping an issue list of a certain form", as that's far too narrow.
I'm really at a loss.
Whether the difficulty is "serious and significant"
is a judgment, but I think that should be determined
by the effects will have on the goal of the process,
I think it's dangerous to conflate procedural correctness with
outcome correctness. They just aren't the same thing. It's
important, dialectically, to be very clear about the distinction
because it affects how people regard each other. Violating process is
a kind of cheating, yes? Having bad outcomes isn't. People react
differently to the different accusations.
as I wrote a related post
http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/05/_watching_the_google_io.html#c182444
Whether the exceptions to the process discussed
(and several others)
What are they?
are or are not "violations"
doesn't matter nearly as much as whether the
abnormalities will cause continued and increasing
fragmentation of the web.
I agree with this. Then why do you keep raising things as process
violations? I would suggest you don't, so we won't be sidetracked.
After all, flip it around: Would you be any happier with the WG if it
had the same outcome (fragmentation of the web) but was procedurally
impeccable by your lights?
I monitor process claims because it matters to my organization that
we understand the W3C process and can work effectively with it.
(Well, also, I do care about procedural fairness, as well as outcome
fairness.)
Let's focus on the goal, and ensure that the process
going forward is actually leading to convergence
and interoperability. Increased transparency is
only the first, but necessary, step.
I'm very much for transparency and openness. I don't think the HTML
WG has been untransparant. On the contrary. While there is an
"information overload" problem, that seems inevitable. I do see the
WG trying to make that ever more manageable. It certainly is doing
fairly well in comparison to many WGs existing and historical.
(Compare any group that works on a closed mailing list. Compare with
the complaints about getting minutes from the AB.)
So perhaps it all boils down to a rhetorical request: Please don't
call something a *serious* process violation unless 1) you will
substantiate it with the process document and 2) you really want a
procedural resolution. It doesn't seem necessary to make your point
and it risks engaging people (like me) on the *wrong* point (by your
own lights).
Thanks for the reply.
Cheers,
Bijan.
